Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Cereals (Deficiency Payments)

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now relax the rule which disqualifies growers from receiving any payment tinder the Cereals Deficiency Payments Scheme if the necessary forms are not completed in time.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): It is necessary for efficient and economical administration to have firm closing dates for the receipt of claims for grants and subsidies, including claims under the Cereals Deficiency Payments Scheme. We are only prepared to consider late claims for payment where we are satisfied that the circumstances are exceptional. A full review of the conditions governing the acceptance of late claims is well advanced.

Mr. Loveys: I agree with the Minister that we must not condone inefficiency in any way in this matter, but does not he agree that the penalty of a 100 per cent. disallowance of deficiency payments is out of all proportion to the offence committed?

Mr. Mackie: It seems hard—I could not agree more with the hon. Member—but it is very difficult to do anything other than this. Perhaps he will consider how difficult it would be to decide what the penalty should be if it were not the total amount. We considered this matter in the review that I have mentioned, but the hon. Member can take it that the question cannot be dealt with in that way.

Sugar Beet (Guaranteed Price)

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will take steps to announce the future price to be paid to sugar beet growers sufficiently in advance for them to know the price they will receive before they have to sign contracts with the British Sugar Corporation.

Mr. John Mackie: All guaranteed prices are determined at the February Price Review for crops to be harvested later that year. Farmers signing sugar beet contracts before the guaranteed price is announced have the assurance that it cannot be less than 96 per cent. of the previous year's price.

Mr. Loveys: Does not the hon. Member agree that beet growers who are some distance away from sugar beet factories are finding it a very uneconomical crop to grow at present prices? Does he not consider that it would be reasonable for them to refrain from signing contracts until they know the future price of their products?

Mr. Mackie: I could not agree with the hon. Member. The question whether this is an economical price is a slightly different one. The point is that the price is agreed at the Price Review for that year's crop. At least the farmers know that they will be paid not less than 96 per cent. It would be difficult to find a time to suit growers of all crops, because considerations vary in respect of different crops and production is started at different times. It would be difficult to suit everybody, and the February Price Review seems to be the best time.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The Minister says that the price will not be less than 96 per cent., but in a marginal area the question whether or not sugar beet should continue to be grown on a certain farm is of great importance. A farmer may very well want to know whether there will be an increase in price for the extra cost in order to be able to say whether it will be worth while growing sugar beet.

Mr. Mackie: It would be very difficult to fix a time for each crop. We have to have a complete Price Review and try to fix prices for all crops and commodities at the same time.

British Butter

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the British home market is now supplied with British-made butter.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): During the 12 months ended 31st October, 1965, the proportion was about 7½ per cent.

Miss Quennell: Does the hon. Member realise that that is a marked decline in the proportion of British home-produced butter? Can he tell the House whether it is the policy of his right hon. Friend to encourage or discourage this production?

Mr. Hoy: On the contrary, it is 2½ per cent. better than it was last year and it is our intention to encourage its production.

Mr. Godber: Can the Minister say how he proposes to deal with the proposals under the National Plan to increase milk production? Will this mean an increase in butter production and, if so, how will it be accounted for?

Mr. Hoy: This is what is likely to happen, as milk production continues to rise compared with 1963 and 1964. It is agreed with the people concerned that the time of the Price Review is the best time to deal with any increase taking place.

Rose Briars

Sir M. Redmayne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the need for research into the possibility of growing rose briars in this country, in order that the rose-growing industry should not be wholly dependent on imports; and what action he is taking to encourage research and production to this end.

Mr. Hoy: I know of no technical reason why rose briars should not be grown in this country, but my right hon. Friend is asking his Horticultural Advisory Council to advise him if experimental work is needed to determine whether there would be practical problems in growing them here on a commercial scale.

Sir M. Redmayne: Is the Minister aware that the Association of British

Rose Producers is very anxious that its members should not be so dependent on imported briars and that they will be grateful if some progress is to be made in this direction? Can he confirm that the figure of imports is higher than the total of £50,000 quoted in correspondence between the Association and the Minister? Is he also aware that the best roses are grown in the Rushcliffe division of Nottinghamshire?

Mr. Mackie: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The figure which I have of imports for 1964 is £528,000, which is a considerable figure and one which we should like to see reduced. It has been referred to the Horticultural Advisory Council which will give every assistance to rose growers. We shall welcome any decrease in imports. This is not an easy job but a specialised one: research may be necessary.

Egg Marketing Board (Producers' Payments)

Sir H. Harrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will cause to be investigated the complaints that the proposed new contracts between the Egg Marketing Board and producers, under which the producers will he paid monthly instead of weekly, will impose hardship, especially for the smaller producer.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): The frequency of payments to producers is a matter for the Board, which announced on 25th November that it had decided to pay fortnightly instead of monthly as originally proposed.

Sir H. Harrison: I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that this action by the Board, which followed the tabling of this Question, is generally welcomed by egg producers? It seems to be a happy solution of the difficulties since the complaints have now ceased.

Sir G. de Freitas: Will the Minister also consider that even this fortnightly payment is doing considerable damage to the producer-owned egg co-op?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend must appreciate that the Board is responsible for the detailed arrangements. There is a special procedure for any form of complaint, but they are responsible.

Charolais Cattle (Leptospirosis)

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding the Charolais cattle at present in quarantine at Devon-port; how many have reacted to the various types of leptospirosis; and whether it is intended to return the infected cattle to France.

Mr. Peart: Thirty-five Charolais cattle reacted to tests for leptospirosis. One was slaughtered and the remainder returned to France by 17th December. The other 184 animals are being held in quarantine for further tests. Any reactors will be destroyed or returned to the country of origin and the remaining animal; will not be released in this country until repeated tests for this infection have given negative results.

Mr. Kitson: Has the right hon. Gentleman ally idea how long it will be before he will be able to clear some of these cattle?

Mr. Peart: There is a strict procedure here—the 21 days procedure—and we will adhere strictly to this. I cannot give a specific date.

Mr. Godber: While sympathising with the Minister in his concern over the disappointments which have occurred in this matter, will he give an assurance that there will be no release at any time while there is the slightest danger of any infection?

Mr. Peart: I certainly give that assurance. We are very strict in this matter

Brucellosis

Mr. Kitson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will introduce a scheme to eliminate brucellosis; and if he will give a breakdown of the figure of £40 million which his Department estimates will be the cost of the eradication scheme.

Mr. Peart: Consideration is being given to this problem, but no decision has yet been made.
I estimate that about one-half to three-quarters of a million female cattle over 20 months would react to blood tests. Under an immediate eradication scheme, they would have to be slaughtered and,

assuming compensation at £70 per head, this would amount to between £35 million and £50 million for compensation alone. Costs of testing and administration would add several million pounds.
The sums involved are, therefore, very large. For this reason I am also giving consideration to a more gradual approach, under which the immediate costs would be smaller.

Mr. Kitson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Northern Ireland they have succeeded in practically eradicating brucellosis at a cost of about £1 per head? On this sort of figure, the cost to us would be less than £10 million. Does he not agree that to contemplate introducing a brucellosis eradication scheme of total slaughter right away is nonsense? Most of us would welcome his introducing a gradual scheme. Is he not hiding behind——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be shorter, even on agriculture.

Mr. Peart: I gave the hon. Member figures in answer to his Question. That is precisely why I am looking at the possibility of a gradual scheme.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider introducing a compulsory vaccination scheme with S.19?

Mr. Peart: I am not promising anything. I said that I am considering the introduction of a gradual scheme.

Mr. Brewis: Would the right hon. Gentleman introduce it first for dairy herds, because humans catch undulant fever from them and this is a very important consideration?

Mr. Peart: I will consider this. As I said, I am looking at the possibility of a gradual scheme.

Intensive Farming (Brambell Report)

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how long he expects his consultations will take with those sections of the agricultural industry affected by the Brambell recommendations.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what


steps he proposes to take to make regulations requiring conditions for particular animals, in view of the fact that the committee appointed to inquire into livestock husbandry declared that certain practices of intensive farming are contrary to animal welfare and need to be controlled.

Mr. Peart: I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave on 1st and 15th December.

Miss Quennell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that until the consultations are complete and the Government's decision is known, the industry is left in a state of considerable uncertainty, which may last two or three years? Could he not tell the House that he will inform the interested parties that there will be a definite time limit on consultations?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Lady will appreciate that after I received the report I immediately asked for evidence from the associations. I have set a time limit—31st January. When I have had their views, I will consider what action I should take.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend also note that the report verifies the fears which many of us have expressed in the House about the cruelties which are inherent in intensive farming? In view of that, will he try to proceed as quickly as possible in this matter?

Mr. Peart: I have often repeated that I am awaiting replies and I will consider all the factors involved.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman having any consultations with overseas suppliers about that part of the Brambell Report which concerns imports of the type of food being produced under intensive methods?

Mr. Peart: I cannot make investigations of other countries' agriculture, but we know the position in those countries. This will be a factor.

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a study of the financial implications to the British agricultural industry of implementing the Brambell Report, and of the practicability and cost of ensuring that food imported into the United Kingdom was produced by methods which

did not conflict with the recommendations of the Report.

Mr. Peart: My study of the Report will include all relevant considerations.

Mr. Joplin: Is the Minister aware that that is a most unsatisfactory Answer to what I believe was a fair Question? Will he give an undertaking that he will not promote legislation, as a result of this Report, which gives overseas producers an unfair advantage over British farmers?

Mr. Peart: I am certain that the hon. Member would accept that it is reasonable that I should have representations made to me. I have asked for evidence on the Brambell Report by all organisations affected. I should have thought that that was reasonable and sensible.

Irish Store Cattle (Waiting Period)

Mr. Jopling: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the effect on the price per hundredweight of Irish store cattle of reducing the waiting period from three to two months.

Mr. Peart: The price of store cattle is influenced by many factors, including the number on offer at the time, their type and age, the availability of keep, and the level of the guarantee payment. To attempt to put a precise figure on the price effect of the reduced waiting period would be misleading. Clearly, however, if Irish stores are marketed in more mature condition, this is likely to be reflected in their price.

Mr. Jopling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is another very unsatisfactory Answer? Is he aware that many cattle which come from Ireland are nearly fat on arrival and the effect of shortening the waiting period involves the price which is paid for them moving higher than the store price per cwt. towards the fat price per cwt.?

Mr. Peart: I hope the hon. Member remembers that he and his hon. Friends pressed me over and over again in Standing Committee to see that there was an adequate supply of Irish store cattle. I think the arrangement is satisfactory.

Mr. Godber: While acknowledging that the Minister's original Answer to this


Question leaves us almost speechless, may I ask him, none the less, whether the other factors in the Irish Agreement will not reduce the numbers of store cattle coming in because of the guarantees given for carcases?

Mr. Peart: No, they will not. There has been a best endeavours promise and I hope that the position will be improved as against what it was two or three years ago.

Bacon Market Sharing Understanding

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what criteria he decided that the evidence was insufficient to enable him to claim a larger share in the Bacon Market Sharing Understanding for British producers.

Mr. Peart: The United Kingdom will, in fact, have a slightly larger share next year as a result of reallocating part of the shares allotted to the Netherlands and Yugoslavia. Within the terms of the Understanding, we could not have claimed more except by showing a significant change in market conditions in favour of United Kingdom bacon, and this we could not do.

Mr. Astor: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a very strong and growing demand for the high-quality bacon being produced at home and that much of the bacon being imported is of a lower quality? Should not, therefore, the home producer be allowed to make a substantial contribution to the increasing requirements under the international plan rather than the modest increase which the right hon. Gentleman is negotiating?

Mr. Peart: I am anxious to improve the bacon side of our industry. I shall be meeting representatives on this matter, but the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that we are bound to honour an international agreement which, after all, was signed by my predecessors. I could not break it.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is it not a fact that producers in this country pressed the right hon. Gentleman very strongly to increase the percentage? Will he recall the things which he said when he was on this side of the House concerning

this agreement and how the percentage ought to be increased? Does he not agree that he has put up a very poor performance on behalf of British agriculture?

Mr. Peart: Not at all. That is rather a silly suggestion. There has been an increase. I am bound by the agreement which was signed by my Tory predecessors. The hon. Member was himself responsible.

Chrysanthemums (White Rust)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to bring in a compensation scheme where chrysanthemums have to be destroyed as a result of the disease called white rust.

Mr. Hoy: No, Sir. I sympathise with the growers who have suffered losses as a result of this disease. But it is a general principle of our plant health controls that the occupier or owner concerned bears the cost of removing a source of infection.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Member aware that that is another very unsatisfactory Answer? Is he aware that his Ministry required defective stock to be destroyed and that, apart from the loss to the growers, this causes non-declaration of the disease by growers when it happens in their crops, with the result that it is spreading very greatly? Will he, therefore, reconsider this matter in view of the importance of chrysanthemums to many growers?

Mr. Hoy: I am sorry to hear that there are some growers concealing this disease. I have no confirmation of that and I should dread to think that there were growers who were doing it, because it could only have a very bad effect on their neighbouring growers.

Mr. Thorpe: May I ask two questions? First, is the Minister aware that the method of inspection carried out by the Ministry could be greatly improved? Is he aware that one of my constituents was told that his entire year's crop had to be destroyed and that it was only because he appealed and had a second inspection that the entire crop was reprieved? If he had not appealed he would have lost a year's income. Secondly, can the Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Liberal Party, too, must be brief in its supplementary questions.

Mr. Thorpe: May I briefly ask the Minister, secondly, to tell us what research is being done by his Department into the disease?

Mr. Hoy: The last supplementary question is on a completely different matter. If there are some weaknesses in inspection I will have a look at them, but I would say on behalf of the whole of our inspectorate in any branch of agriculture that we get nothing but letters of thanks for the great services which the inspectors render.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

White Fish Industry

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of the White Fish Authority.

Mr. Hoy: I am not aware that any statement is called for. The White Fish Authority will continue as in the past to carry out its responsibilities to promote the development of the white fish industry.

Mr. Wall: Is the Minister aware that the White Fish Authority is being frustrated by lack of Government financial support of its many schemes? Will he agree that an expansion of the work of the Authority is of importance to the whole industry?

Mr. Hoy: The first part of that question just is not true. We have provided money. The money for this year will be greater than for the previous year. It may be that the distribution is not liked by the hon. Member, but I am sure that it will be welcome to inshore fishing.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's discussions with the White Fish Authority, and their policy in regard to the future of a minimum prices scheme in the fishing industry.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food what negotiations he has had with the fishing industry concerning a minimum price system; and when he will make a statement.

Mr. Hoy: I have had full discussions with the White Fish Authority and will make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Wall: Is there any intention of introducing a statutory scheme and, if so, when does the Minister expect to make a statement? Will it be at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament?

Mr. Hoy: We are certainly holding discussions. Certain difficulties have arisen not only at home but abroad, too, but these discussions have been carried on in a very friendly way and we hope to reach a decision.

Mr. Johnson: While I accept the Minister's Answer for the time being, will he accept my view that the take-over bid of the Associated Fisheries Combine by the Ross Group will alter the nature of the industry as we know it, not least the nature of the wet fish auction sales in the dock? Will he consult the White Fish Authority about the effect of this proposal?

Mr. Hoy: I think that I had better leave it to those two giants to fight out whether one will pay £16 million and the other will receive it. On the other hand, it is true that it may have an effect on the market, and I have no doubt that the White Fish Authority will be paying attention to any consequences arising from this sort of take-over.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Is it not time that there was an amalgamation between the Herring Industry Board and the White Fish Authority?

Mr. Hoy: That is another question.

Mr. G. R. Howard: While hoping that we shall get this statement very soon after the Recess, may I ask whether I am not right in saying that the Chairman of the White Fish Authority, Mr. Roy Matthews, who has done so well for the industry, is very much in favour of a minimum price? I hope that the Government will be able to accede to the wishes of the White Fish Authority.

Mr. Hoy: Without disclosing the opinion of any side, I can say that the


discussions with Mr. Roy Matthews have been very friendly indeed.

Mr. Godber: May I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) and others have said? There is great concern among those in the industry about the matter. They need something to give them a greater feeling of security. I am sure that we all wish this to be done, and I hope that the Minister will be able to be helpful.

Mr. Hoy: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said, which is along the road on which we have been trying to work. Like him, I hope that we shall reach a satisfactory settlement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must be questions.

Milk Products (Imports)

Mr. Bessell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of milk products consumed within the United Kingdom is imported.

Mr. Hoy: During the 12 months ended 31st October, 1965, about 53 per cent. by weight of total supplies other than stocks already held in store were imported.

Mr. Bessell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the Government's request that the industry should increase production, he proposes to make representations to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to impose restrictions upon imported milk products?

Mr. Hoy: That is another question. Sometimes when we even have a 10 per cent. charge on imports we get into trouble with certain hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that the percentage of 53 per cent. which he quoted is a very high percentage of imports? Does he not agree that there should be some reduction—indeed, there must be—if anything like the National Plan is to be carried out? Even that is optimistic.

Mr. Hoy: I certainly hope to see a large proportion of it taken up by our own industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board Schemes (Compensation Clause)

Mr. Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the standard clause about compensation for subsequent flooding inserted in North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board constructional schemes has been interpreted in such a way that it places upon the pursuer the task of proving that the flooding would not have occurred but for the Board's works; and, in view of the decision of the Court of Session on the particular case of the flooding which took place in the River Conon valley in 1962, if he will introduce legislation to amend the standard compensation clause in constructional schemes.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The clause in question, which is included in the powers conferred on many statutory undertakers, seeks to preserve for persons who may be affected by the Board's schemes rights which they have under common law but which, in the absence of such a clause, might be held to be overruled by the statutory powers to construct and operate the schemes. In these circumstances I see no need for the clause to be altered.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the Secretary of State aware that his reply will cause grave concern to the farmers and crofters in the River Conon Valley who suffered such crippling financial losses in 1962 due to Hydro-Electric Board operations and who are under a constant threat of a repetition of those losses? Will he cause an inquiry to be made into the very special circumstances of this case?

Mr. Ross: No, I do not think so. I think that it would be quite wrong to change the law in this respect. Indeed, if this clause did not exist, there would he cause for concern because we should be taking away existing common law rights.

Mr. G. Campbell: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that this interpretation is fair to individuals who may suffer considerable loss and damage as a result of such work? Is he aware that it is an


extremely arduous and major operation to prove?

Mr. Ross: I think that it would be quite wrong for me to say whether the courts were right or wrong in their interpretation. Certainly we have not had many complaints about this in the past.

St. Andrews and Edinburgh Universities (Building Developments)

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the value of the university developments at St. Andrews and Edinburgh held back by the Government's economic measures; and how long this work will be deferred.

Mr. Ross: The total amount of building at the universities of St. Andrews and Edinburgh which appears likely to be deferred until 1966–67 amounts to £736,000.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. aware that these developments are needed to meet the expansion programmes of these universities? Will he not reconsider his priorities and look again at the cuts which have been imposed on higher education in this and other respects?

Mr. Ross: We are always prepared to look at these matters again, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that although this action has been regrettable, the contribution which Scotland is making in this respect is right, bearing in mind that these are the only two universities affected.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not right for this matter to be put in its proper perspective, and can we have some facts on the remarkable progress that has been made at these two universities?

Mr. Ross: The amount of building work going on this year is £4·3 million and £3·5 million at St. Andrews and Edinburgh respectively, and that is unaffected.

Forestry Commission Land (Pony Trekking)

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the policy of the Forestry Commission with regard to charging for the use of their land for pony trekking.

Mr. Ross: The Commission makes a charge, at the annual rate of £4 per horse, to riding schools and other commercial organisations which use its land.

Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously supporting what amounts to a tax on this healthy and growing sport? Does he support the proposition that the public should be charged for access to Crown lands? Should not the Forestry Commission be encouraging people to visit and enjoy our forests instead of discouraging them?

Mr. Ross: People are encouraged to visit and make use of our Crown lands. We are here dealing with commercial organisations. In any case, the hon. Gentleman should not lose a sense of proportion about this, for the actual cost is 1s. 6d. per horse per week.

Mr. Gerald Donnelly

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an assurance that he will take steps to ensure that the action taken in the case of Mr. Gerald Donnelly, who was arrested in Reading and conveyed in custody to Glasgow, having been charged with a speeding offence, is not permitted to occur again in such circumstances.

Mr. Ross: I would refer to the Answer given to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) on 2nd December. Following on this incident, the procurator fiscal, Glasgow, took immediate steps to draw the attention of his staff to the standing instructions by the Lord Advocate which are intended to prevent this type of occurrence.

Mr. Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when this man, who had pleaded guilty and had then heard no more about it, went to Reading Police Station in answer to a summons he was thrown in a cell for 22 hours, was then taken to Scotland and was thrown into a cell there for 12 hours, was then taken to court handcuffed to two other prisoners, and then fined £5, after which he had to make his way back to London under his own steam? Does my right hon. Friend not think that this is a disgrace in a so-called civilised society.

Mr. Ross: These matters were dealt with in the Answer to which I have referred.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if Mr. Gerald Donnelly, who appeared in Glasgow recently to answer a charge of exceeding the speed limit, was handcuffed while being taken from prison to the sheriff court.

Mr. Ross: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stodart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say under what heading handcuffs were used on this occasion? Since the headings which he gave to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) were that either violence was anticipated or that an attempt at escape or rescue might be made, what on earth caused the use of handcuffs in this case?

Mr. Ross: As the hon. Gentleman knows, discretion is given to the police in respect of the safe custody of prisoners between stations and the courts in Glasgow. Flow the police use that discretion is a matter for them. General guidance is giver and I am discussing with the Chief Constable of Glasgow this whole question and whether arrangements other than those existing at present should be made.

Mr. Younger: Is it not absolutely shocking, irrespective of the case of this gentleman, that any prisoner should be handcuffed unless there is a real danger of him trying to escape?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should try to appreciate the facts and the circumstances under which the police must operate. In some cases they deal with prisoners in batches of probably 30. What an outcry there is if one of them escapes or there is trouble in an attempted escape. We must give a certain discretion to the police in this respect and, I agree, watch that it is used wisely.

Mr. Wylie: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree, while accepting all he has said about the difficulties of the police, of which we are well aware, that in this case there was no justification whatever for applying handcuffs to this man?

Mr. Ross: It is because of that that we are discussing what arrangements could be made with the Chief Constable of Glasgow.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the Lord Advocate's regret at the treatment given to Mr. Gerald Donnelly recently, he will reimburse Mr. Donnelly for his expenses in getting home from Glasgow to Reading.

Mr. Ross: In the special circumstances of this case, if Mr. Donnelly makes a claim for reimbursement of these expenses it will be considered.

Mr. Stodart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that satisfactory reply. Does he agree that while we have all been proud of the reputation of the civilised nature of the Scottish legal system, it was badly tarnished by this episode?

Scottish Universities (Engineering and Science Graduates)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total numbers of engineers and scientists, respectively, produced by Scottish universities in each of the last five years; and, in each case, how many subsequently secured employment in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: The available figures for applied scientists do not differentiate between engineers and others. The provisional returns for 1964–65 show that 779 students graduated in applied science and 918 in pure science. Corresponding figures for previous years are given in Table 6 of the annual University Grants Committee returns.
I am having such information as is available on employment extracted and will send it to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hamilton: While that Answer is satisfactory as far as it goes, would my right hon. Friend consider publishing it in the OFFICIAL REPORT SO that all hon. Members who are interested might have the information available? Would it not be desirable, in view of the need to get the Scottish economy growing, that my right hon. Friend should himself produce an annual report containing the relevant figures and statistical information about


the universities, instead of having to refer to the U.G.C. and other bodies?

Mr. Ross: No, Sir. If we get the information from one body—that is, the right body—that should meet our need. I will consider the other point raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Noble: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, whatever the statistics may show when we have an opportunity of seeing them, too many scientists are still leaving Scotland? Is this not a good reason for the right hon. Gentleman using his best endeavours to get things like a computer centre in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: The use of scientists is certainly something which we are anxious to forward, and we are doing everything we can in that way.

Haemodialysis (Fluoride-free Water)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he is making to ensure that a supply of non-fluoridated water is available for use in haemodialysis.

Mr. Ross: None, Sir. I am advised that no such arrangements are necessary.

Mr. Rankin: Since even my right hon. Friend will no doubt agree that official opinion has not always been, and is not always, correct, does he realise that a large body of unofficial expert opinion takes the opposite view to the official one in this respect? Will he, for safety's sake, see that this type of water is available in respect of certain kidney diseases?

Mr. Ross: I am satisfied that the advice I am getting now is correct. I am advised by my own medical staff, who are in touch with practising specialists in this sphere.

Local Government (Reorganisation)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to make a statement on progress in the reorganisation of local government in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I have nothing to add at present to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) on 17th November.

Mr. Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make any real progress in this at all or is he going to allow himself to be overtaken by his right hon. Friend in England, which would be a pity because Scotland started well ahead?

Mr. Ross: I am not going to allow myself to be overtaken by any of my right hon. Friends in this or any other matter. The hon. Gentleman should know that circumstances are different in the two countries, We will deal with this matter in our own way.

Mr. Baker: Will reference be made to this problem in the Economic Plan for Scotland? When is the plan likely to be published?

Mr. Ross: Those are entirely different questions, particularly the last one.

Student Nurses (Pay and Working Conditions)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will initiate an independent inquiry into the pay, hours and working conditions of student nurses.

Mr. Ross: No, Sir. These are matters for the Whitley Council which covers the whole of Great Britain.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend consider it satisfactory that these hard-working girls should be paid less than 2s. an hour net? Will he reconsider their position or at least send to the Whitley Council the massive correspondence which I have had on this issue from these girls, who are often afraid to speak up for themselves lest they may be victimised in their respective hospitals?

Mr. Ross: I am perfectly sure that the Whitley Council is aware of these matters and is at present no doubt considering any proposals which are put to it on behalf of the nurses.

White Fish Subsidy (Inshore Vessels)

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet decided upon a single rate of payment of white fish subsidy to inshore vessels.

Mr. Ross: No, Sir. This matter is still under consideration.

Mr. Campbell: While the fishermen's representatives may not agree on which of the methods is the best method, is it not a fact that they are all agreed that one method should be selected; and that it is the Government that should make this decision?

Mr. Ross: The fishermen may be all agreed that one method should be selected, but the hon. Member should know from past experience that, invariably, the method selected is the wrong one to them. This is a very complicated matter—indeed, what the fishermen favour changes from one thing to another.

Development Districts (Public Expenditure)

Mr. Noble: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase there has been in the time taken either within his Departments or by local authorities in the progressin of plans for public expenditure in development districts.

Mr. Ross: None, so far as I know. If the right hon. Gentleman has any evidence to the contrary, I should like to examine it.

Mr. Noble: Will not the Secretary of State agree that there are many cases in the Highlands and other areas where people believe, rightly or wrongly, that delays have taken place? Will he give the House a clear assurance that this method of delaying the planning of future works is not being encouraged by his Department, through the local authorities?

Mr. Ross: I certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance, but if he has any evidence about any of these cases where it is believed that some people think something or other, surely it would be far better if he were to bring them to me.

Mr. Manuel: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House whether there has been a stepping up or a falling back in local authority activities connected with loan sanctions granted this year?

Mr. Ross: If we go by the figures, we see that within the first nine months of the year loan sanctions have amounted to about £120 million, as against the figure for the first nine months of last year of £105 million. There is, therefore, no indication of a falling away.

South Ayrshire Hospital (Ayr)

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now give a firm date for work to commence on new South Ayrshire Hospital in Ayr; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: I must ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the review of the hospital building programme.

Mr. Younger: Is the Secretary of State aware that the lack of a firm date for starting work, whenever it might be, is already making it impossible to plan minor works and small improvements in the existing hospital? Now that Ayr is a development district, will he please do what he promised to do during his General Election campaign, which is to bring forward the date of commencing the new South Ayrshire Hospital?

Mr. Ross: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets all this information about what I promised to do and did not, but he had better get his facts right. I pointed out, of course, that it was his Government that dropped this project from the first hospital plan, and put it back for five years. I have said that we are reviewing the whole plan.

Mr. Stodart: Has the right hon. Gentleman really the effrontery to forget his criticisms and strictures on the postponement of this hospital? Has he really the face to go on with this very scratchy gramophone record now about waiting for the publication of the hospital review?

Mr. Ross: We should get the facts right. In the absence of any Conservative Ayrshire Member of Parliament raising the complaints of the people of Ayr at that time I had to do it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in South Ayrshire there is considerable anxiety about the future of the Ballochmyle Hospital, and will he keep that in his mind when considering the hospital review?

Mr. Ross: Yes, Sir.

Court of Session (Divorce Actions)

Mr. Wylie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will propose any change in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Session in actions


of divorce before the report of the committee presently sitting under the chairmanship of Lord Grant becomes available.

Mr. Ross: No, Sir.

Mr. Wylie: Is the Secretary of State for Scotland aware that his reply will be widely welcomed in Scotland, especially by those opposed, in particular, to the idea of dissolution of marriage in the lower courts, but also by those already concerned about the ability of the lower courts to cope with the work they already have?

Law of Valuation

Mr. Wylie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to introduce legislation to amend the law of valuation in Scotland following the recent decision of the court that off-peak electric storage heaters fall to be regarded as heritable for valuation purposes.

Mr. Ross: No, Sir. I do not think that it would be wise to attempt to define by Statute which installations and other improvements to property are heritable and which are not.

Mr. Wylie: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this view of the law, which I do not question in any way, is widely resented by those who feel that they have been misled by the electricity board into purchasing these storage heaters, and generally widely resented by people who intended to improve their own property in this way?

Mr. Ross: I do not think that the position would be improved by the introduction of the change in legislation which the hon. and learned Member suggests.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this Question underlines the illogicality of the rating system? Can he say whether he is marching step by step with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in this review of local taxation?

Mr. Ross: I think that my hon. Friend is quite right. It is the rating system that is the real culprit, and he knows perfectly well how I feel about that, and how I would like to act in this way.

Brucellosis

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what would be the estimated cost of carrying out an eradication scheme for brucellosis in cattle; and whether he will institute such a scheme in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has already stated, the estimated cost of an immediate slaughter policy for the eradication of brucellosis in cattle is for Great Britain, between £35 million and £50 million, of which the Scottish share is between £8 million and £10 million. It does not take into account the cost of testing and administration, which would be substantial.
My right hon. Friend and I are at present considering what steps should be taken to deal with this problem.

Mr. Brewis: While thanking the Secretary of State for his reply, may I ask him whether he does not think that we may not be able not to afford such a scheme? As so many other countries are introducing schemes, for us not to do so might well damage our exports very badly.

Mr. Ross: I agree with the hon. Member about the inherent difficulties, and that is why we are examining all the possibilities in relation to what can be done.

Mr. Stodart: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his very best to keep his nose ahead of his right hon. Friend in this matter? As we were in the lead in Scotland for the eradication of T.B., will he do his best to get a scheme for the eradication of brucellosis started as soon as possible?

Mr. Ross: We have to work on a United Kingdom basis, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we work closely together and very successfully.

Housing Association Houses

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have been built by housing associations since the Housing (Scotland) Act 1962.

Mr. Ross: There were 58 under the Act of 1962, and 113 under earlier Acts.


In addition, 127 and 14 respectively are being built.

Mr. Brewis: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to encourage housing associations? In particular, why was no mention made of them in the recent White Paper on housing in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: If the hon. Member will read the White Paper again he will see that, comprehensively, we do support this form of house building.

Seed Potatoes (Producers' Return)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps, following the evidence adduced by the honourable Member for South Angus, to improve the return to seed potato producers in the east of Scotland.

Mr. Ross: The Government's responsibility under the potato guarantee is specifically related to potatoes sold for human consumption.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am aware of that, but what does the Secretary of State intend to do about it? Is he aware that seed producers are getting a considerably lower price than the Board is offering the ware producers? Is he aware that if this situation goes on, the seed producers will turn to ware and increase production which the Board will have to take?

Mr. Ross: I think that the hon. Gentleman is far too pessimistic in this case about the turnover for the whole year in respect of these potatoes.

New School Places (School- Leaving Age)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new school places will have to be provided to meet the requirements of the higher school-leaving age; and whether he is satisfied that the present building programme is adequate for that purpose.

Mr. Ross: Precise figures for new places needed will not be available until education authorities have completed their review of requirements. The present building programme will be increased to cover the essential additional accommo-

dation for the raising of the school-leaving age.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Government plans for extending comprehensive education in Scotland put a further strain on the school building programme, particularly in the rural areas? Can he further say whether any school building in Scotland has been either restricted or held back as a result of the Government's economic measures?

Mr. Ross: The answer to both parts of that supplementary question is, "No, Sir."

Road Programme (Kincardine)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why Kincardine County Council have been asked to reduce their long-term programme of maintenance and minor improvements on classified roads; and whether he will now make available money for major improvements such as at Upper North Water Bridge.

Mr. Ross: For the 10-year period 1965–75 the average annual amount of grant for maintenance and minor improvements within which the county council has been asked to plan is 23 per cent. higher than its allocation for the year 1964–65. It is lower than desired because this work, in Kincardine as elsewhere, must be limited to what we can afford.
The council has been advised to go ahead with preliminary work on the preparation of the Upper North Water Bridge diversion, but I cannot say when construction will be authorised.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the county council is seriously concerned about the cut in expenditure on roads? Does he also recognise that this particular bridge where a development is required is a notorious accident area and that an early start of work there would be very much in the interests of road safety?

Mr. Ross: I do not consider an increase from £65,000 in the year 1964-65 to an average of £80,000 each year over the next 10 years a cut.

Calf Subsidy Scheme

Mr. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average length of time in 1964 and 1965 between the birth of a calf and the payment to the farmer of benefit under the Calf Subsidy Scheme.

Mr. Ross: Precise information is not readily available but it is estimated that the average length of time is about 10 months.

Mr. Baker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Would he not agree that in view of the credit difficulties that the farmer is facing at the moment, the time is disproportionate between the inspection of a calf and the actual payment of the subsidy? Would he not consider increasing the number of livestock inspectors?

Mr. Ross: No, I do not think that we should proceed to that. I understand that between ear punching and payment, the time is four to five weeks.

Mr. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost in 1964–65 of the benefits paid out on the Calf Subsidy Scheme; and what was the cost of administering the scheme.

Mr. Ross: Payments in Scotland under the Calf Subsidy Scheme in 1964–65 totalled £3·98m. The cost of administering the Scheme is estimated at £80,000.

Mr. Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what increase is likely as a result of the increase in the calf subsidy and also as a result of dairy herd calves being eligible for subsidy?

Mr. Ross: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID (ARBITRATION COSTS)

Mr. Doughty: asked the Minister without Portfolio whether he will take steps to extend legal aid to persons who are obliged by circumstances beyond their control to proceed by way of arbitration in respect of the costs of so proceeding.

The Minister without Portfolio (Sir Eric Fletcher): No, Sir.

Mr. Doughty: Is the Minister without Portfolio aware that this procedure is

causing great hardship to people who may have a judgment on third-party rights against insurance companies but are prevented from recovering that judgment because they cannot proceed by way of arbitration?

Sir Eric Fletcher: There may be isolated cases of hardship, but the hon. and learned Member will be aware that in 1957 the British Insurance Association and Lloyd's both gave an undertaking to the Lord Chancellor that their members would not in future insist on an arbitration clause if the insured preferred to bring proceedings in court. Therefore, I cannot think that the extension of legal aid to arbitration has a very high degree of priority. If and when legal aid can be extended, there are other courts and tribunals, such as the Land Tribunal, and the various kinds of maintenance cases in the magistrates' courts, which would, I think, have a higher priority.

Mr. Hogg: But would not the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? The need for legal aid is extremely flexible and one cannot relate it to the particular court in which the proceedings are brought. Is it not the fact that the real need for legal aid is the need to establish a right of any kind? Will not the hon. Gentleman consider whether he can make his rules more flexible?

Sir Eric Fletcher: I will certainly consider the matter with my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that arbitration cases, pure and simple—particularly commercial arbitrations—tend in the ordinary way to be expensive, and there might be difficulties about extending legal aid to arbitrations in general.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

F111A (British Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the F111A will be able to carry British-made nuclear bombs.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): Our primary requirement is for an aircraft to replace the Canberra as a tactical strike-reconnaissance aircraft carrying conventional weapons. But the


F111A would also be able to carry the nuclear weapons the hon. Member mentions.

Mr. Ridley: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on maintaining the independent British nuclear deterrent, but could he give a categorical assurance that the bomb designed for the TSR2 can be carried in this new aircraft, if ordered?

Mr. Healey: I am always grateful when I get congratulations from the Front Bench opposite. I hope that it sets a precedent which others will follow. I can give the assurance for which the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) asks.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask my right hon. Friend what will be the cost of this plane, plus a nuclear weapon?

Mr. Healey: I would like notice of that question.

Royal Navy (Release of Recruits)

Sir A. Spearman: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will release those who wish to leave the Royal Navy in those cases where they were under 16 years of age at the time of joining.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): No, Sir. However, the hon. Member will recall the statement by my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy, in the debate on the Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill last week, that the Navy is considering coming into line with the Army and Royal Air Force with regard to giving a right to a recruit to discharge himself very early in his period of recruitment.

Sir A. Spearman: Does not the Minister think that the examination could be speeded up, and does he not agree that it is hard on a boy joining under the age of 15 if he has to be kept against his will for many years? Is he much good to himself or to the Navy in those circumstances?

Mr. Mallalieu: I think that the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Sir A. Spearman) has a point, and I will look at it speedily.

Mr. Rose: Has my hon. Friend given consideration to the suggestion that I made some time ago that an option to

leave the Service should be permitted at the end of three years of a long engagement?

Mr. Mallalieu: We have, in fact, considered that solution. I do not think that it is the best way of going about it.

Royal Air Force Married Quarters (Lincolnshire)

Sir J. Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Air Force married quarters are situated in the parishes of Tattershall and Coningsby in Lincolnshire; and how many of them are unoccupied.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Bruce Milian): There are 529 married quarters at R.A.F. Coningsby and 30 more are under construction. At present 144 of the completed quarters are unoccupied.

Sir J. Maitland: Does riot that produce a very sad situation, when it is well known that there are many men in all the Services wanting accommodation? Surely there should be some method of making this accommodation available to any of the Services under the new set-up? Will the Minister consider that?

Mr. Milan: This is a temporary situation. There is a long-term use for the station at Coningsby. I agree with the hon. Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland), and I am grateful to him for drawing this to my attention. The present situation is not satisfactory. We are using these quarters, for example, for separated families. But I am certainly looking into the question to see if we can utilise those which are at present still unoccupied.

H.M.S. "Cambridge"

Sir H. Studholme: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to date of the buildings and installations at H.M.S. "Cambridge"; what effect the construction of a civil airport at Gnaton Cross would have on the proper functioning of the gunnery school; and what would be the estimated cost of moving the gunnery school elsewhere.

The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Christopher Mayhew): Since 1950, well over £2· million has been spent


on setting up and maintaining this naval gunnery range. To move it somewhere else would probably cost over £3 million. However, Her Majesty's Government have decided that the development of a new airport for Plymouth at Collaton Cross, close to the range, cannot be justified in the foreseeable future, and so the question of moving H.M.S. "Cambridge" does not now arise.

Sir H. Studholme: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, which will give considerable satisfaction in the Plympton rural district. Do I take it that the proposed inquiry into the airport in February will not now take place?

Mr. Mayhew: I assume so.

Defence Establishments, Northern Ireland (Civilian Personnel)

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian personnel were employed at defence establishments, including those of the Territorial Army, in Northern Ireland at 1st January, 1964 and 1st January, 1965; what are the prospects for the next five years; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Mayhew: At 1st January, 1964, 5,197; at 1st January, 1965, 5,418. In October, when the figure had fallen to 5,255, I announced the closure of the Joint Anti-Submarine School at Londonderry over the next three years. It would be wrong for me to make any further predictions at this stage of the Defence Review.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the Minister aware that in view of that reply and the debate which is to follow, I shall relieve him of the necessity of replying to any supplementary question?

National Guard

Mr. William Yates: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken on the proposals submitted by the hon. Member for The Wrekin to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army for the formation of the National Guard on a county basis to be drawn from the Civil Defence organisation and the Territorial Army as a special national home security force capable of dealing with national

emergencies, either civil or military; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): The Government will consider these proposals, in addition to others which have been put forward in the context of their examination of how best to secure appropriate provision for home defence. I would refer the hon. member to what my right hon. Friend said about this in replying to the debate on 16th December.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that that is a much more sensible reply than we have heard from the Dispatch Box for some time? Will he take it from those who serve in the Territorial Army and the Territorial Associations that the proposals that they wish to put forward are proposals designed to assist him to make the new force effective?

Mr. Reynolds: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. William Yates) has made a considerable number of proposals and suggestions, and we will consider all of them.

Mr. Powell: Now that the Government, happily, are having second thoughts about the Territorial Army, does the hon. Gentleman realise how premature it was to put forward an order of battle for the Territorial Army before the review which the Secretary of State announced had even begun?

Mr. Reynolds: The Government announced that it was not our intention to retain the Territorial Army for home defence and have always said so. We are still looking at home defence, so it was not premature. It might perhaps be better for the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to have noted the debate on the Reserve Army.

Service Men (Deaths Overseas)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for Defence why, after a 17-year-old soldier, on active service in Aden, had been killed by the discharge of a bullet from a gun due to the carelessness and negligence of a fellow soldier, he refused to pay the cost of £393 of bringing the body back to England and burying it, and left it to the parents of the soldier to do so.

Mr. Reynolds: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given on 26th October by my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney).

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does not my hon. Friend think that if that is the policy of the War Office it is about time that it was changed in cases where the Department itself is responsible for the man's death, since it happened because of negligence? Would he not agree with me that what was done only serves to dig the knife more deeply into the wounds of the afflicted parents, and that the whole thing is an absolute damn scandal?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Reynolds: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says, and neither can I accept that we should differentiate as between people unfortunately killed in action and people killed in accidents or who die from other causes.

Joint Military Activities (United States)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, following the recent talks in Washington, he will make a statement on discussions of proposals for joint military activities with the United States of America.

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. I have nothing to add to what was said in the House yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he reported on his visit to Ottawa and Washington.

Mr. Allaun: When my right hon. Friend goes to Washington shortly, will he bear in mind that many Labour Members would oppose in every possible way our getting tied up militarily with American wars in Vietnam, China or other areas east of Suez?

Mr. Healey: I shall bear in mind, of course, the views of all my hon. Friends and also of hon. Members opposite, and I shall be guided in this as in all matters by what I conceive to be the interests of the country.

FAIRFIELDS SHIPYARD

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs care to answer the Question of which I have given him Private Notice?

Hon. Members: What is it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a private matter between the hon. Member and the Minister. The House wants to know what the Question is.

Mr. Rankin: It is very simple. Would my right hon. Friend care to make a statement about the future of the Fairfield shipbuilding company?

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. George Brown): Although I am not yet in a position to give the House the details, I am glad to be able to say that arrangements have been made to safeguard the future of Fairfields shipyard. This will reassure not only the people working in the yard, but also the shipowners who, from a sense of patriotism and generosity, have kept orders with the yard and sub-contractors who have continued to supply equipment to the yard despite the uncertainty which has clouded its future.
I am glad to say that we now have the foundation for a financial partnership between the Government, private enterprise and the trade unions as a result of which this shipyard can continue. The private enterprise partners will consist of Mr. Iain Stewart and his associates; Lord Thomson of Fleet; Sir Isaac Wolfson; and others with whom we are currently discussing the position. In addition two of our major trade unions have expressed their intention of participating, and discussions are going on with others.
The Government will hold half of the equity of the new company Fairfield (Glasgow) Ltd. The other half will be shared between the other partners. This will enable the shipyard to operate as a commercial concern. The shipyard will need, in addition to the equity, loan capital and this the Government are prepared to provide on normal terms. These arrangements do not extend to the engineering works Fairfield-Rowan Ltd.
The chairman of the new company will be Mr. lain Stewart, whose wide business interests are already closely associated with the West of Scotland, and Govan in particular.
In backing this new concept in British business all the partners, the Government, private enterprise and the trade unions are relying on the men in the yard to co-operate unreservedly in working the yard as efficiently as possible and in particular in achieving the flexible manning arrangements and interchangeability of workers which are essential. If this co-operation were not forthcoming the whole scheme involving the combined support of Government, the unions and private enterprise would fall to the ground and the shipyard would have to close.
I am sure the House will welcome our action as a quite new partnership not only between Government and private enterprise, but now between Government, private enterprise and the trade unions, the motive being not merely to save a recently modernised Scottish shipyard from extinction, important as that would be, but, in addition, to provide a proving-ground for new relations in the shipbuilding industry which could change the whole image of our country.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement which he has just made will bring to 5,000 workers at the Fairfield shipyard the merriest Christmas and happiest New Year that they have ever known? Is he also aware that everyone of us associated with Fairfields admire the courage and the tireless energy which he has displayed in meeting file many difficulties that beset him? May I assure him that he will have the full cooperation of the Fairfield shipyard workers in promoting efficiency and increasing production?

Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said.

Mr. Barber: The long Answer given by the First Secretary to the Private Notice Question raises a matter of considerable importance, with implications for the rest of industry. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while we on, these benches last month supported the injection of public money to keep Fairfields going until we had the report of the Geddes

Committee in February, and whilst obviously any attempt to get rid of restrictive practices and to bring in the unions is welcome to us, I believe that the whole country will see the method now selected by the First Secretary as being only the beginning of an extension of nationalisation into the private sector, precisely on the lines laid down in "Signposts for the 'Sixties". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The country will note the cheers of hon. Members opposite.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he has completely reversed the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who now, significantly, seems to have been pushed completely out of the picture and who only a month ago announced to the House a holding operation which involved the provision of loan capital without the slightest hint that the Government might provide equity capital? May I ask—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is a very important Answer. Yesterday, in answer to a Question, the right hon. Gentleman promised a statement. I do not complain of its being done in this way, but I think, Mr. Speaker, that we must have the right to put one or two questions.
If the right hon. Gentleman says the 50 per cent. State participation which he announced today is essential to ensure the co-operation of the unions, what possible safeguard is there that this form of creeping nationalisation will not be demanded in any other case?
Finally, there is one question which I have put to the right hon. Gentleman before. When the First Secretary last made a statement in connection with Fairfields, I asked for a simple assurance that any arrangements made would have the approval of the Geddes Committee. The right hon. Gentleman failed to answer that question. Will he now tell the House whether this form of nationalisation, which many people will see as putting a premium on bankruptcy, has or has not the approval of the Geddes Committee?

Mr. Brown: I am rather surprised at the ungracious way in which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted this statement, and in particular his attempt to complain, although he said that he was not complaining, about the form in which I have made it. The right hon. Gentleman did not draw attention to the fact


that, although I was under no obligation to do so, I saw to it that the Opposition had more than one copy of the statement fully 15 minutes before I made it so that they might have the opportunity to look at it.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's second point, this issue is not within the terms of reference of the Geddes Committee. When we get the report of the Geddes Committee about the future and any necessary reorganisation of the industry, we shall be able to take that into account in relation to this shipyard as to any other shipyard. But if I had done what the right hon. Gentleman wanted me to do the shipyard would not have been there to take it into account.
May I make quite clear that the 50–50 partnership arrangement has not been demanded by the trade unions or insisted upon by anybody except those of us who were concerned to keep this shipyard going? This is not, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, a form of nationalisation. We are not compulsorily acquiring anything here. Nobody is being compelled to take part. The existing private enterprise company has run the yard into bankruptcy. A receiver is there. There are excellent assets. There are orders. "Keeping the yard going to next February" was about the most pointless remark that the right hon. Gentleman could make, because the ships ordered but not yet started will not be completed for two years or more, and if one is to do any good with the injection of public money one must try to use the period which it buys to try to arrange for the yard to stay in business so that these orders can be dealt with. That is what we have done.
I can tell the House that in all the discussions, which have seemingly been endless, over the past few weeks, the only people who have objected to something like this being done have been the right hon. Gentleman and the other shipbuilders who would have been only too glad to see the yard shut down.

Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend take it that the carping and short-sighted attitude of the right hon. Gentleman will be noted in Scotland by unions and management—and I repeat management —alike in firms other than Fairfields?

Is he aware that we welcome what he has called a new concept in British business, and those of us who know lain Stewart welcome his participation? We welcome also the participation of Sir Isaac Wolfson and Lord Thomson, but perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us to what extent Sir Isaac Wolfson and Lord Thomson will be involved in decision-making.

Mr. Brown: As regards decision-making, questions of company policy and actions will be controlled by the new board when it is established. We are now discussing with the partners the composition of that board and the details, and no one is going into this with any intention of trying to dominate others. [Laughter.] There will be a fair arrangement, but, had I waited for the details to be settled and announced—perhaps the hon. Gentleman opposite who laughed derisively will recognise this—the shipyard would have gone.
The shipowners who have got orders there have kept them, under great personal pressure and at great cost to themselves. They have several times pointed out to me that they could not go on. They are currently negotiating this week with a foreign shipyard which was ready to give them a very attractive deal to take the orders over. Therefore, I had to give them the assurance this week. The receiver, who has kept the creditors off for two weeks, has told me that he has to make an arrangement this week. Therefore, I have to ask the indulgence of the House if I have made the statement in the broadest terms. I shall, of course, come before the House and the country as soon as I can with the details.

Mr. David Steel: In view of the stress which the right hon. Gentleman laid on securing the co-operation of the working force, will he, in considering the composition of the new board, consider inviting representatives of the employees to sit on the board?

Mr. Brown: Before the undertaking took its present form, we had drawn up a possible board and arrangements had been made even then to see that trade unions were represented on it. I am sure that this will be borne in mind now.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Ladies and Gentlemen have questions which they would like to ask, but we must move on.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last week, when I wanted to ask a question, I was not able to get my go in owing to the muddle. Would it not be in order for me to have a go now?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must deal with the one point before I deal with the further point which I already know is coming. I know that it would be convenient for the hon. Lady if she managed to get in. It is not a question of order whether she does or does not.

Mr. McMaster: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the important repercussions of this statement, both favourable and unfavourable, in other shipyards and industry generally, would it not be possible on this occasion to allow a few more back-bench questions?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not. I anticipated this in the remark which I made just now.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS (COMMISSION)

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Anthony Crosland): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the public schools.
The Government have already announced that they propose to set up a Public Schools Commission. I am glad to be able to tell the House that Sir John Newsom has accepted my invitation to be Chairman of the Commission.
The main function of the Commission, which will cover Scotland as well as England and Wales, will be to advise on the best way of integrating the public schools with the State system of education. The Government are determined that the public schools should make the maximum contribution to meeting the education needs of the country, and that this should be done in such a way as to reduce the socially divisive effect which they now exert. This implies that the schools should, like other parts of the

education system, become progressively open to boys and girls irrespective of the income of their parents; that the schools should move towards a wider range of academic attainment, so that the public school sector may increasingly play its own part in the national movement towards comprehensive education; and, in particular, that the schools should seek to meet any unsatisfied need for boarding education amongst wider sections of the population.
For the immediate purpose of the Commission, public schools are defined as those independent schools now in membership of the Headmasters Conference, Governing Bodies Association or Governing Bodies of Girls Schools Association. But the Commission will also be asked to recommend in due course whether any action is needed in respect of other independent schools.
The Commission will be expected to collect and assess all relevant information about the public schools and the need and existing provision for boarding education; to work out the role which individual schools might play in national and local schemes of integration; to initiate, subject to my approval, experimental schemes; and to recommend a national plan for integrating the schools with the maintained sector of education.
The Commission's detailed terms of reference and a list of the schools concerned will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir E. Boyle: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks of "a national plan for integrating the schools with the maintained sector", what is his real objective? Is it to give a wider range of children the opportunity to benefit from the admittedly good education provided by many of these schools—many people would support that objective—or is it to bring about fundamental changes in their independent status and character, which would be infinitely more controversial.
Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the importance of now stating clearly his policy regarding the future of the direct grant schools? Does he realise that we on this side attach quite as much importance to these schools as to the public schools, partly because many of them are schools of the highest quality making a notable contribution to the educational


provision in their areas, and partly because we believe that there is great advantage in having a number of fine schools standing between the maintained and independent sectors and sharing some of the advantages of both?
Finally, as regards the appointment of Sir John Newsom, will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that many of Sir John Newsom's warmest admirers, like myself, will perhaps be reminded of the Clerihew,
Ernest Newman
Said, 'New week Schumann';
But, when Sunday came
It was Wagner just the same.
However, having said that, and subject to his answer to my first supplementary question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take it that we on this side would certainly wish Sir John Newsom well in what is clearly bound to be a difficult task?

Mr. Crosland: The Clerihew is altogether too subtle for me. As to the real objectives of the Commission, they are as laid down in the terms of reference and as outlined in my statement, namely, that we wish to integrate these schools with the State system in such a way that they make the maximum contribution they can to meet the educational needs of the country.
In my view, the direct grant schools pose a problem different from that posed by the public schools. They are already in some sense part of the public sector. In many areas they play an essential part in local authority educational arrangements, and it would be quite wrong to take them out of the maintained sector. They are predominantly day schools whereas the public schools are predominantly boarding schools. In any case, we have already laid down the policy for the direct grant schools in our comprehensive circular, and I am quite clear that they must be treated as a separate problem and as a separate operation.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who sat under Sir John Newsom at a recent conference on the public schools organised by Dr. Royston Lambert in Cambridge particularly welcome his appointment? Second, will my right hon. Friend say what

criteria he has in mind as to the need for boarding education?

Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his first remark. On the second point, I do not think that one can lay down the criteria for boarding education in black and white detail. We are gradually acquiring much more information about the need for boarding education, partly as a result of the Martin Report, partly as a result of the Newsom Report itself, and, even snore recently, as a result of the researches of Dr. Royston Lambert, which are financed by my Department. We are gradually acquiring a corpus of knowledge about the nature of the currently unsatisfied need for boarding education, but should not like to set down any sort of criteria in black and white now.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The Minister will be aware that many of us welcome a great part of the contents of his statement, but will he clarify a little his reference to extending the work of the Commission to other independent schools? Does it mean that the Commission will be working in two stages? Will its remit be extended at a certain stage, or just how will it proceed? Will it produce an interim report on public schools per se and then go on to examine other private education, or what precisely will it do?

Mr. Crosland: I do not want to lay it down in any sort of detail. I think that one must leave it to the Commission to decide any such question as interim reports. But I have in mind that the problem which has excited all the public discussion over the last twenty years is that of what are called the public schools, broadly the schools as I have defined them, which amount in number to about 277. We want to give the Commission that problem as the first priority. On the other hand, it may turn out that other parts of the private school sector as well raise problems, and it may turn out that one cannot examine the public schools themselves, as ordinarily defined, without taking account of other private schools. So I do not want to rule out consideration of the remaining private school sector, which amounts altogether to about 3,000 schools, but I want to make it clear that the primary task of the Commission is to deal with the public schools.

Mr. Brooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that almost everybody will wish well to the Commission and the Commissioners, but that it would help us greatly if the Minister could tell Parliament clearly whether the Government's main purpose is educational or Socialist?

Mr. Crosland: I have never seen how it was possible to divorce educational questions from social questions. The idea that one could discuss education in a vacuum divorced from social influences has always seemed to me, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, quite nonsensical. I believe that any of these controversial questions in education which we discuss are bound to have very strong social overtones and implications, and it is deceiving ourselves to pretend that we can ignore them.

Mr. Lipton: While I am sure that most progressive people welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend, may I ask him whether he can say to what extent some of the headmasters of the 250 or so public schools have already expressed approval in general terms of his objectives.

Mr. Crosland: The headmasters of most of the schools and, indeed, all the representative bodies of the headmasters have long been saying that some reform of the schools is vitally necessary. Indeed, they have called on me in very strong terms to set up a Commission and introduce some machinery for making reform. Whether every headmaster will agree with every word in the terms of reference remains to be seen. We shall no doubt discover that in the next few days.

Mr. Hogg: Most of us, I think, would agree that there is an unsatisfied demand for boarding education in this country, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these schools, both day and boarding—they include both—have very specialised and very distinguished academic records based on their independence of selection? To what extent is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give assurances that those records will be respected and that those specialised educational and academic traditions will be respected?

Mr. Crosland: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman really sums

up what will be the main task facing the Commission, to try to link all that is best in the schools, which people rightly wish to preserve, with the unsatisfied need and demand for the kind of boarding education which they provide. This is the crux and heart of the whole matter.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to hear more of this, but we must move on.

Following are the Terms of Reference:
The main function of the Commission will be to advise on the best way of integrating the public schools with the State system of education. For the immediate purpose of the Commission public schools are defined as those independent schools now in membership of the Headmasters Conference, Governing Bodies Association or Governing Bodies of Girls Schools Association.
The Commission will be expected to carry out the following tasks:

(a) To collect and assess information about the public schools and about the need and existing provision for boarding education; forms of collaboration between the schools (in the first instance the boarding schools) and the maintained system.
(b) To work out the role which individual schools might play in national and local schemes of integration.
(c) If it so wishes, and subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, to initiate experimental schemes matching existing provision with different types of need.
(d) To recommend a national plan for integrating the schools with the maintained sector of education.
(e) To recommend whether any action is need in respect of other independent schools whether secondary or primary.
In carrying out its tasks, the Commission will be expected (while respecting the denominnational character of the schools), to pay special attention to the following objectives:

(a) To ensure that the public schools should make their maximum contribution to meeting national educational needs, and, in the first instance, any unsatisfied need for boarding education in the light of the Martin and Newsom Reports*.
(b) To create a socially mixed entry into the schools in order both to achieve (a) above and to reduce the divisive influence which they now exert.
(c) To move towards a progressively wider range of academic attainment amongst public school pupils, so that the public school sector may increasingly conform with the national policy for the maintained sector.

* Report of the Working Party on Assistance with the Cost of Boarding Education, Published 1960." "Half Our Future". A report of the Central Advisory Council for Education (England). Published 1963.


(d) To co-operate closely with local education authorities in seeking to match provision with iced for boarding education.
(e) To ensure the progressive application of the principle that the public schools, like other parts of the educational system, should be open to boys and girls irrespective of the income of their parents.

Following is the list of schools mentioned in the terms of reference:

Abbotsholme
Ackworth
Aldenham
Allhallows
Ample forth
Ardingly
Beaumont
Bedales
Bedford
Berkhampstead
Bishop's Stortford
Bloxham
Blundell's
Bootham
Bradfield
Brighton
Bromsgrove
Bryanston
Canford
Carmel
Charterhouse
Cheltenham
Chigwell
Christ's College, Brecon
Christ's Hospital
City of London
Clayesmore
Clifton
Colston's Boys
Cranleigh
Dean Close
Denstone
Douai
Dover
Downside
Dulwich
Durham
Eastbourne
Edinburgh Academy
Ellesmere
Epsom
Eton
Felsted
Fettes
Forest
Friends'
Giggleswick
Glasgow Academy
Glenalmond, Trinity College
Gordonstoun
Grenville
Gresham's
Haileybury and I.S.C.
Harrow
Harrow, Lower School of John Lyon
Highgate
Hurstpierpoint College
Ipswich
Kelly College, Tavistock
King's College School, Wimbledon
King's College, Taunton

King's School, Bruton, Somerset
King's School, Canterbury
King's School, Ely, Cambs.
King's School, Gloucester
King's School, Macclesfield
King's School, Rochester
Kingswood
Lancing College
Langley School
Leighton Park
Leys
Liverpool
Llandovery
Lord Wandsworth
Loretto
Malvern
Marlborough
Merchant Taylors'
Merchiston Castle School
Mill Hill
Milton Abbey
Monkton Combe
Mount St. Mary's
Nautical College, Pangbourne
Nottingham
Oratory
Oswestry
Oundle
Prior Park
Queen's College, Taunton
Radley
Ratcliffe
Reed's
Rendcomb
Repton
Rishworth
Rossall
Royal Masonic
Royal Merchant Navy School
Rugby
Ruthin
Rydal
St. Bees
St. Benedict's
St. Dunstan's
St. Edmunds, Canterbury
St. Edward's
St. George's, Harpenden
St. George's, Weybridge
St. John's, Leatherhead
St. Lawrence
St. Paul's
St. Peter's
Scarborough
Sebright
Sedbergh
Sevenoaks
Sherborne
Shrewsbury
Silcoates
Solihull
Stonyhurst
Stowe
Strathallan
Sutton Valence
Taunton
Tettenhall College
Tonbridge
Trent
Truro Cathedral School
University College School, Hampstead
Uppingham
Warwick King's School
Wellingborough


Wellington
Westminster
Whitgift
Winchester
Worksop
Wrekin
Wycliffe
The Abbey, Malvern Wells
Abbot's Hill, Hemel Hempstead
Alice Ottley School, Worcester
Ancaster House School, Bexhill
Ashford School, Kent
Atherley School, Southampton
Badminton School, Westbury-on-Trym
Bedford High School
Bedgebury Park, Goudhurst
Benenden School, Cranbrook
Berkhamsted School for Girls
Brentwood School, Southport
Bruton School for Girls
Burgess Hill P.N.E.U. School
Casterton School, Kirkby Lonsdale
Channing School, Highgate
Charters Towers School, Bexhill
Cheltenham Ladies' College
Christ's Hospital Girls' School, Hertford
City of London School for Girls
Claremount School, Esher
Cleveland School, Stockton-on-Tees
Clifton High School
Convent of the Holy Child Jesus, Edgbaston
Convent of the Sacred Heart, Hove
Convent of the Sacred Heart, Woldingham
Cranborne Chase School, Tisbury
Croft House School, Shillingstone
Croham Hurst School, S. Croydon
Derby High School
Downe House, Newbury
Durham High, School
East Anglian School, Bury St. Edmunds
Edgbaston Church of England College
Edgbaston High School
Ellerslie, Great Malvern
Elmslie Girls' School, Blackpool
Eothen School, Caterham
Esdaile School, Edinburgh
Farnborough Hill Convent College
Farringtons Girls' School, Chislehurst
Felixstowe College
Francis Holland School, N.W.1
Francis Holland School, S.W.1
Gardenhurst School, Burnham-on-Sea
Godolphin School, Salisbury
Greenacre School for Girls, Banstead
The Grove School, Hindhead
Guildford High School
Harrogate College
Hawnes School, Haynes Park
Headington School, Oxford
Heathfield School, Ascot
Hollington Park School, St. Leonards-on-Sea
Howell's School, Denbigh
Hull High School
Hunmanby Hall, Filey
Huyton College, Liverpool
James Allen's Girls' School, Dulwich
Kent College, Pembury
Kingsley School, Leamington Spa
Lady Eleanor Holles School, Hampton
Lawnside School, Malvern
Lewes High School
Lillesden School, Hawkhurst
Lowther College, Rhyl
Malvern Girls' College

Micklefield School, Seaford
Moira House School, Eastbourne
Moreton Hall, Oswestry
Mount School, Mill Hill
Mount School, York
Newcastle-on-Tyne Church High School
Northwood College
Oakdene, Beaconsfield
Ockbrook School, Derby
Overstone School, Northampton
Parsons Mead, Ashtead
Penrhos College, Colwyn Bay
Pipers Corner School, High Wycombe
Polam Hall, Darlington
Princess Helena College.
Hitchin Prior's Field, Godalming
Queen Anne's School, Caversham
Queen Ethelburga's School, Harrogate
Queen Margaret's School, Esrick
Queen's College, London, W.1
Queenswood, Hatfield
Roedean School, Brighton
Royal Masonic School for Girls, Rickmansworth
Royal Naval School, Haslemere
Royal School, Bath
St. Albans High School
St. Audries School, West Quantoxhead
St. Brandon's School, Clevedon
St. Catherine's School, Bramley
St. Clare's School, Penzance
St. Dunstan's Abbey, Plymouth
St. Elphin's School, Darley Dale
St. Felix School, Southwold
St. George's School, Edinburgh
St. Helen's School, Northwood
St. Hilary's School, Alderley Edge
St. James' School, West Malvern
St. Joseph's Convent, Reading
St. Leonards-Mayfield School, Mayfield
St. Leonards &amp; St. Katherine's, St. Andrews
St. Margaret's School, Exeter
St. Martin's School, Solihull
St. Mary's Convent, Ascot
St. Mary's Convent, Shaftesbury.
St. Mary's Hall, Brighton.
St. Mary's School, Calne.
St. Mary's School, Gerrards Cross.
St. Mary's School, Wantage.
St. Michael's School, Limpsfield.
St. Michael's School, Petworth.
St. Monica's School, Clacton.
St. Paul's Girls' School, W.6.
St. Stephen's College, Broadstairs.
St. Swithun's School, Winchester.
St. Winifred's School, Llanfairfechan.
School of S. Mary &amp; S. Anne, Abbots Bromley.
Sherborne School for Girls.
Skellfield School, Thirsk.
Stonar School, Melksham.
Stover School, Newton Abbot.
Stratford House School, Bickley.
Sunderland High School.
Surbiton High School.
Tormead School, Guildford.
Trinity Hall, Southport.
Tudor Hall School, Banbury.
Uplands School, Parkstone.
Upper Chine School, Shanklin.
Upton Hall Covent, Upton, Wirral.
Wadhurst College.
Welsh Girls' School, Ashford, Middlesex.
Wentworth Collegiate School, Bournemouth.


West Cornwall School, Penzance.
Westolbirt School, Tetbury.
Westwood House School, Peterborough.
Winceby House School, Bexhill.
Winterbourne House Collegiate School, Bristol.
Wycombe Abbey School.
York College.

SOUTH-EAST STUDY (REVIEW)

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on planning matters arising from the review of the South-East Study.
My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs announced on 4th August that a population growth of some 2·9 mill ion could be expected between 1964 and 1981 in the South-East and East Anglia Economic Planning Regions, and the National Plan has set this within the general framework of regional development.
We now need a programme of planned expansion schemes to house Londoners and big enough to accommodate about 1 million people during that period.
Substantial proposals have been announced already for Ipswich, Northampton and Peterborough and for a new town in North Buckinghamshire other town expansion schemes are under way or are reaching agreement. Further plans must now be made for the balance, for us to house about 350,000–400,000 people, and our general purpose will be to avoid new overspill schemes within the metropolitan region.
The study of the Newbury/Swindon area will be published shortly and that for Southampton/Portsmouth is well advanced. A study will be made of Ashford as the possible site of another major development.
The South-East Economic Planning Council, which will be established shortly, will be brought fully into the consideration of these proposals.
I shall be having discussions with the Greater London Council about their overspill proposals including their wish to carry out a large scheme comparable to one of the first generation new towns.

I shall shortly be issuing revised estimates of population changes as a guide to local planning authorities, and I hope thereafter to reach agreement with the county councils in the home counties on the main issues affecting the proposed extension of the metropolitan green belt. With permission, I will circulate a summary of the county population increases in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that what he has said in his statement follows on from and is a development of, rather than a reversal of, what was forecast in the White Paper laid by his predecessor and covering the original massive South-East Study by officials? As to the particular studies in respect of particular towns, can he make it clear that these will be analyses of the situation for discussion and will not represent in any degree Government decisions?
As to the discussions with the Greater London Council in respect, in particular, of the major development to which he has referred, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that those discussions will also at an appropriate stage bring in the authorities of the area inside which this development is contemplated? Can he also clear up the question as to whether this development, whose location, if I understand aright, is not yet settled, is consistent with the particular detailed population figures in respect of particular counties which the right hon. Gentleman has said he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT? In other words, do those population figures take account of this particular development by the Greater London Council?
Finally, in view of the enormous importance of this general problem, covering, as it does, the area of expected biggest development of population in this country during the next 15–20 years, will the right hon. Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and arrange that soon after we come back we have a debate not only on the statement that he has just made but on the whole of this immensely important and very difficult problem?

Mr. Crossman: I will certainly, of course, put the last point to my right hon. Friend. The question of whether it should be just after we come back


might perhaps be considered, because one or two announcements will be made early in the spring, after which a debate might be more appropriate.
With regard to the Greater London Council development, I want to make it clear that up to now no place for it has been fixed. Only the size has been discussed. There has been agreement in principle between the Ministry and the Greater London Council that the Greater London Council shall do something that it has always wanted to do, which is to go ahead on its own and go in for the job that we have done in the new towns and show that it can do it better. I am glad to have this competition, and I am glad to encourage the Greater London Council. I want it to build up a permanent staff of the kind which is more easily built up with a major project of this kind. However, the site, the size and the details have still to be discussed. It is merely that we want the Greater London Council to choose a site, and in so doing it will consult the local authorities there. That deals with the last three questions put by the right hon. Gentleman.
With regard to the first two questions, the first of which was whether this is a modification of the South-East Study rather than a change, I should say that some of the figures, as the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, are slightly modified. But they are not modified in any way which would undermine the general thesis of the enormous growth in the South-East and of the need for major movement of London population. Changes of policy are much more to do with the problem of how to prevent any further drift into the South-East and how to deal with the drift that is already there. The studies regarding possible new towns are in different stages. In the case of the Peterborough-Ipswich-Northampton studies, we have moved quite a long way. With regard to Bletchley, I hope to announce an area for designation, on which I shall consult the local authorities, in January.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I referred to the studies specifically mentioned in the right hon. Gentleman's statement and asked whether, when published, they would represent decisions or no more than analyses of the situation. I did not refer to earlier announcements.

Mr. Crossman: The Newbury/Swindon and Southampton/Portsmouth surveys are merely in the stage of preliminary studies by experts. We shall take the policy decisions later.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Can my right hon. Friend set a date for the publication of the Swindon/Newbury study? Will he give an assurance that the local authority principally concerned—Swindon—which has a good record in the absorption of London overspill, will be consulted.

Mr. Crossman: The study of Newbury/Swindon is already in draft and I hope to publish it fairly soon. The role and development of Swindon will form an important part of that study.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that Peterborough is already attracting an enormous number of people to work from the rural areas in the Isle of Ely and other surrounding counties? There is a great need for him to reconsider the position of the smaller towns and boroughs on the fringes of these new urban developments. Will he give an assurance that, despite the setting up of regional councils, the local authorities will still have direct access to him to put these very important points?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning this matter, for it is a subject which has worried me greatly. There has been a false assumption that, when one designated an area of urban expansion, one could then prevent any expansion of villages around it by planning. However, all the evidence is that seepage occurs to the villages, which attract population, and one must therefore plan both the urban and the peripheral areas together. This week I discussed with Lord Macclesfield from Oxfordshire precisely this problem with regard to his council. This is a matter for local authorities, and not the regional councils, and is something to which we are giving renewed attention owing to past failure.

Mr. Freeson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome the announcement of this second move in the direction of a further new town, especially after ten years of stagnation in the South-East? Can we know at this stage the approximate size of population proposed for the


town to be provided by the G.L.C., bearing in mind the necessity to relate such proposals to the need for redevelopment and decanting from twilight and slum areas in the older parts of London?

Mr. Crossman: I can say about the Greater London Council's proposal that it feels that it could manage a town of a population of 60,000 to 70,000—in fact, on the scale of the first generation new towns such as Stevenage and Harlow. It also agrees with me that the town should not be anywhere near London but must be well away and not in the commuter paradise. It should be further outside the Metropolitan area.
The G.L.C. is looking widely—even as far away as Cornwall as a possibility. I think that the G.L.C. is prepared to say that it must be ambitious in trying to move people well out. It will be a town of between 60,000 to 70,000 people well away from London.

Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Gentleman's statement that the figures do not differ substantially from those in the South-East Study shows that the Government's policy for bringing about a more even distribution of population and employment is not yet adequate. With regard to the population changes, when can we expect to receive the figures for the London boroughs analogous to those he has provided for the counties? Can he say what capital expenditure on transport facilities, water resources and so on will be incurred over the period covered by this study?

Mr. Crossman: On both those issues I would ask the hon. Gentleman to put down Questions. I cannot give him an answer off the cuff on the second point and, on the first, we have not yet completed a break-down of the general London figures.
We have to do three things. First, we have to have a statistical analysis of the total number of people we have to move. Secondly, we have to decide how many we have already included in clearly defined schemes. Thirdly, we have to calculate how many people will move naturally and without control. One of my criticisms of the South-East Study was that it made far too big an assumption of a natural seepage of 500,000 into the commuter belt. That would be

disastrous. We have to do more planning than that if we are to avoid such a situation. The point is that we must lay the necessary basis for a much larger plan for moving population out of London than was contemplated in the South-East Study.

Mr. Deedes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Ashford has had a question mark hanging over it for years and that populations of 100,000 and 250,000 have been mentioned? Is he further aware that it is difficult for the local council to plan coherently in the circumstances? Can he set a term for the beginning or conclusion of the study?

Mr. Crossman: I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman. One of the difficulties has been the Channel Tunnel and the question of whether Ashford would be linked with that or not. However, we have decided to go ahead, Channel Tunnel or not, for there is great capacity in Ashford and we want to get on quickly. Of course, we shall consult the local authorities first and foremost on the form of the study and on the objectives he has mentioned. This will be done in the closest consultation with the local authorities.

Mrs. Butler: May I press my right hon. Friend further about the discussions with the G.L.C., since this is so important in view of the still appalling London housing problem? Would it be possible to streamline and speed up the preliminary technicalities so that a start on the new town could be made as soon as possible? As there will be considerable speculation in more ways than one now that he has announced a new town, can he indicate where it is likely to be?

Mr. Crossman: I would if I knew, but I do not. Quite literally, there has not yet been an initial survey. The G.L.C. is now making a survey. It has a considerable team out studying possible sites. The new town will be an addition.
I reckon that, in the town development schemes in bits and pieces around London, there are homes for about 120,000 to 130,000 people through Greater London Council development schemes. But that is not enough. We must enormously enlarge the target. The G.L.C.'s proposed new town is one way of doing it. The Peterborough-Northampton-Ipswich


area is another part and the Bletchley area yet another.
We have to look for something more, and this is where the Plymouth/ Southampton area and the Newbury/Swindon area have two main parts to play. We have not yet organised nearly sufficient planned movement even with all the plans we have up to now.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to break in, but we were due on the Adjournment at 12 o'clock.

Following is the summary:


ESTIMATED POPULATION INCREASES BY GEOGRAPHICAL COUNTIES 1964–1981(excluding planned expansions)


(thousands)



Outer Metropolitan Region
Rest of South East Region
East Anglia


Total
1,056
735
209


Bedfordshire
54
33
—


Berkshire
98
50
—


Buckinghamshire
108
13
—


Essex
174
82
—


Hampshire
50
251
—


Hertfordshire
190
—
—


Kent
140
93
—


Oxfordshire
9
67
—


Surrey
178
—
—


East Sussex
23
69
—


West Sussex
32
67
—


Isle of Wight
—
10
—


Cambridgeshire and Isle of Ely
—
—
39


Huntingdonshire and Peterborough
—
—
39


Norfolk
—
—
58


East Suffolk
—
—
51


West Suffolk
—
—
22

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the loss of 40 minutes of private Members' time, could the loss be divided equally between the various Adjournment items listed?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his suggestion but I have no power to decide. However, I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will take note of a very valuable suggestion.

Mr. William Yates: Further to that point or order, Mr. Speaker. In future, when statements are to be made as they have been to-day, and when private Members' time is to be lost thereby, could this be calculated in advance? Secondly, may I point out that I have been put in a very awkward position because the Minister of Housing and Local Government, besides making his statement on the South-East, has made a major alteration in the Midlands, cancelling the new town Order for Dawley?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not attempt to raise in the House something which he attempted to raise by another means earlier today. I sympathise with the general point he is making but I cannot do anything about it.

Mr. William Yates: Further to that point of order. I think that I can, Mr. Speaker, because the Adjournment takes place during the course of the day. In view of the exceptional things which have happened, is it not possible for an hon. Member to raise a matter, if there is time before 4.30?

Mr. Speaker: I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. It is possible on the Adjournment for any hon. Member to raise anything for which any member of the Government is responsible. All that he has to do is to catch my eye.

Sir John Eden: On a point of order. I do not wish to take up time, Mr. Speaker, but I want


to know whether there is any Ruling about the number of Government statements which can be made on any one day. There appears to be a habit of bringing forward one large package on the last day of a Session.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that there is no such Ruling.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Further to the original point of order. I understood, Mr. Speaker, that you commended to the House that the time lost, namely, 41 minutes, should be equally divided among all the debates, which means that about seven minutes should be taken from each. Is that the understanding of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that that was the general feeling of the House in the spirit of fair play in which the suggestion was made.

Mr. William Yates: Further to that point of order. In view of the very difficult situation in which I have been placed by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must find other ways of giving notice that he intends to raise it. He must not assume that the rules of the House were drafted especially for one hon. Member.

Mr. William Yates: On a point of order——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not hear the hon. Gentleman further on a point of order.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN

12.42 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Waver-tree): I recently had the privilege of being part of the C.P.A. delegation to Pakistan, admirably led by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger). Over 18,000 miles of journeying in all we received the greatest kindness and hospitality. The President of Pakistan talked to us for nearly an hour in Rawalpindi and we met the leaders of East and West Pakistan and realised even though we had to travel round rather than across India, how united the two wings of that great country of Pakistan were.
In order to save the time of the House, I will not mention in detail the many other people whom we met and the places we visited, but it was indeed a shock to see the signs of war, the slit trenches dug, the sandbagged public buildings, the paper pasted over the windows, as here in 1940, the hotels once Indian-owned taken over by the custodian of enemy property, the Indian paddle steamers lying at anchor and locked up in one of the arms of the Brahmaputra.
Yet what is done by man is less important than what is thought by man. It seemed to me that we were back in the days of the religious wars, and civil religious war, as 17th century Europe found to its cost, is the most bitter of all conflicts. We saw refugees at Muzzaffarabad and Mirpur and heard their horror stories and were told that since the cease-fire started about 100,000 had come out of Kashmir with little hope of land on which to settle. We saw them receiving their wheat and dole of four annas and heard their stories of how they had trekked over the mountains, 5,000 to 7,000 a week, avoiding the minefields.
Despite the usual stories of the abduction of all the girls from 10 to 20, I do not think that it would help if I went into details about the much graver reports which we heard from many quarters. I did not actually meet an eye witness of any of the stories. How true in point of fact can they be? No one knows. Foreign correspondents are not allowed on either side. The stories may be exaggerated. But when one of our cars had a puncture on the way to Maugla, there came across the countryside a cavalcade of about 100.


We thought that they were nomads, but we stopped another car and through an interpreter we found that they were refugees 22 days out of Kashmir, the old men and the women with all their chattels, one or two grandchildren riding ponies and donkeys with the occasional lamb sharing the saddle. It was like a miniature Exodus.
Could that have been arranged? Anyhow, we heard from them the same ghastly stories. But does it really matter whether those meetings were prepared or not? What the stories mean is that the cauldron of hate is bubbling and the steam may seep throughout the world.
To put the matter in proper balance, I ought to quote the Indiagram of 8th December:
The Defence Minister recalled that during the recent conflict, Pakistan had used napalm bombs … against the civilian population.
A member asked whether the Government had received any information about the fate of the Sikh girls abducted by the Pakistanis. The Defence Minister said that according to the Indian representative in Karachi, thirty girls had been located in one of the camps there".
In India there may be similar stories of horrors perpetrated by the Pakistanis. No one knows the truth. Rumour and hate breed together and all must fear their brood.
Some of us said that we would like to go to the front at Lahore. It was like going to Waterloo from Brussels—the broken wire, the dust, the derelict villages, 225 near Sialkot and 85 near Lahore. It reminded me very strongly of Normandy, 21 years ago.
It is true that there was the occasional United Nations vehicle, flag, or officer whom one met on the road, but off it through the minefields beyond the canal which with one or two bridgeheads now forms the front line, it was the morale, efficiency and camouflage of the Pakistani Army which I remember best. I wonder whether Great Britain, so obsessed by Africa which in total has only one quarter of the population of the Indian sub-continent, is aware that every night Pakistanis and Indians are killing each other by mortar, machine guns or sniper. On one small sector, which was controlled by a battalion, the previous evening five infiltrating Indians had been killed.
It is not only in the West that there is conflict. Had the train on which we were due to travel along the East Pakistan frontier with Tripura not been shot up two days before, we would not have gone by road to Chittagong and perhaps the Government majority would not longer be one.
What worries me is the sense of mission in all circles; the feeling that a series of semi-miracles has made so many people wish for a second round. Be it the stopping of the Indian attack when one of the 22 bridges of the Lahore canal remained unblown, be it the number of unexploded bombs—and we saw some of the effect of one of them near Peshawar —be it the effect of the favourable weather so that the Pakistani Navy could wipe out the radar station at Dwarkah, be it the spirit of the women volunteers training others with rifles in Karachi, or be it the strength of the syphon which takes the canal under the river Ravi and which was never supposed to take the weight of tanks, yet which did so for the great counter-attack; the stars in their courses seem also to be fighting. Much as one admires the spirit of the 70 Pakistanis who tied anti-tank mines to themselves to make a human minefield and blow themselves to glory, such great spirit may lead to even greater destruction, especially if egged on, possibly without the necessary arms, by the Chinese of whose delegations and activities we were aware almost everywhere we went.
Against this gloom one can mark the exchange of Red Cross parcels and the fact that although internationally accepted conventions and courtesies may have been thrown to the wind, at the Deputy High Commissioner's party at Dacca we were delighted to see the Deputy High Commissioner for India. Yet everywhere we went, from governors to heads of villages, there was talk about Kashmir and the many United Nations resolutions largely unimplemented.
Though history may say that the British option to the princely States, including Kashmir and Hyderabad, was wrong, we are dealing with the present, and I believe that if nothing is done in Washington or in Kashmir there is a major danger of war breaking out again. Next time it will be much more difficult to stop.
President Ayub has said that war is a luxury which neither Pakistan nor India


can afford. Both nations have so much to do to raise their people from near starvation, though before this war Pakistan was going ahead very quickly. Great Britain has massive interests in both countries. Should there be a second round this might not end with only two contestants. It might involve us all. The stakes are very high indeed.
I should like to pay a tribute to India. I was the guest of that country for a month earlier this year. In the last 18 years India has tried to form a secular State from the many tongues and religions which form her vast territory. She is the third biggest Moslem country, and one meets Moslems in high places everywhere —some who have risen from nothing to wealth and prestige. I saw the great new factories of Bangalore and Madras; I saw the new Corbusier-designed Punjab capital in Chandigarh; the reclaimed land of the salt lakes in Calcutta, where an acre and a half of land is reclaimed every day. I wish that we could do the same on Merseyside. I saw the Bhakra Dam, the highest in the world. Over 30,000 people were moved and 366 villages inundated. Wales objects to Liverpool submerging one. These are the temples of resurgent India, and many more need to be built if only there was peace.
India will say, "If one frontier is changed then what about the Nagas, the Sikhs, and those in the South?" Yet, when in India I had the privilege of a one-and-a-half-hour talk with Sheikh Abdullah, at his private house in Srinagar, I could not help wondering, upon seeing a portrait of President Ayub in one corner, and Mr. Nehru in the other, whether India would learn, more quickly than we, our Irish lesson, which took Great Britain so many decades to comprehend. There is an Urdu proverb which says:
If you live by a river do not live at enmity with the crocodile.
The problems for both countries are very formidable. Food in India was short last year and this year the monsoon partially failed. Even before the 17 or 22 days' war there were in India many factories operating at only a quarter capacity, such was the shortage of foreign exchange to buy components and raw materials. In Pakistan the agriculture is only a third as efficient as the world average. There is

a great salinisation problem in the West. Despite the great natural gas finds, in the East there are 1,500 people to the square mile subsisting in the biggest delta in the world. This is a huge tropical Holland, where river and mud and rice and people merge together, a foot or so above the tides, and where the cyclones blow—one to our great regret only five days after we left, killing in one day this year 18,000 people. Heaven knows how many were killed in the last few days. Our great sympathy goes out to the Pakistani people.
There was little done by us when we were in control and only now are the dykes being built against flood and storm in the hope that Pakistan will grow enough food to do away with present imports. Although Islamabad and Mangla rise in the Western Plains as great memorials to man, landless labourers and illiteracy increase in the East, and the race between co-operative endeavour and Communism may not be won by our friends. It will certainly not be won if there is a second round, desired by so many in Pakistan and I fear in India too.
What should Her Majesty's Government do? The right hon. Gentleman had great success over the Rann of Kutch, but the cease-fire confrontation, and Kashmir, are much greater problems. We are not a super Power and all that we can do is to chivvy America and Russia to take joint action if humanly possible. First, I believe that the armies should be kept apart, either on the present ceasefire line or on the old one. There must be some neutral zone established, if fighting and killing are not to escalate. Secondly, can we not establish some international body, like the League of Red Cross Societies, operating behind the lines, where the United Nations does not go, to ensure that the world knows what is going on? Such a body could inquire into the so-called genocide, and it would stop rumours breeding enough hatred to start the war again.
Thirdly, the rich Western nations could build a new road up into Ladakh where India faces the Chinese. It would be a much better line of communication for her troops than the narrow precipitous road which is prone to landslides, leading from Jammu to Srinagar, and up which the convoys continuously chug. It seems that the problem of Kashmir is


the reverse of Solomon's baby. Jammu is largely Hindu while Azad Kashmir is almost entirely Moslem. Fourthly, would India ever consider offering a three-way plebiscite to the Vale, giving people the option to go to India, Pakistan or to become independent under an internationally guaranteeing council, on which India and Pakistan would serve? It would mean waiving her strictly legal rights, but India would remove a great burden from her shoulders. Kashmir, no longer in the news, might become an Eastern Switzerland, for the enjoyment of man. I agree that the difficulties for India are great but by such an offer she would make a great gesture to mankind and would show that
the voice of the people is the drum of God".
Such solutions would be very expensive for the Western world. They would mean the establishment, on the subcontinent, of an international peace force. But since such a force would have no major arms, what better permanent training area than Kashmir, and if the United Nations is powerless to produce such a body, why should not like-minded nations of the Commonwealth do it, to avoid the Commonwealth going the way of the Holy Roman Empire?
This would be a small insurance premium against a vast potential loss. The present so-called cease-fire cannot go on indefinitely. If nothing is done, Pakistan and India may fight again, and in the end some such force will be required. Why not get it going before the fight begins again? Such a force would threaten no one and would be a guarantee of the efficiency of the ceasefire. I fear that, after what has happened, the offer made by President Ayub in 1959 for joint defence will be difficult to secure. But could not the great Powers guarantee the frontiers and rely on an international force to name the aggressor?
Not only would India, by offering a compromise, put herself into the van of human progress, but massive aid would go to her and Pakistan, both economic and social. Both are faced by an expansionist ideology and, if the free cooperative ideal is to triumph and not go under, there is not much time. The works of God can so easily and quickly be destroyed by man. Yet the works of man

done in time can in due course become the works of God.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. George Jeger: I must congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on his initiative in raising this Adjournment debate and expressing what I might say are the collective views of the recent delegation to Pakistan so eloquently and in such a detailed manner.
The hon. Member was right to draw attention to the grave danger which exists of the outbreak of a further war between Pakistan and India. It is generally acknowledged that the cease-fire was obeyed by both sides very reluctantly. Both sides claimed to have won a great victory in the 17-day war. It was very interesting to hear from our Pakistan friends—I use the word "friends" advisedly—that they did not fear another attack by India and were prepared, with courage, to withstand any such attack if it came. The mood of the people whom we met at all levels was one of wishing to live at peace with their neighbours but, at the same time, to preserve their honour and independence.
Our task here in Britain is to face the problem of how to prevent a second conflict from breaking out. In both India and Pakistan there is acute poverty and suffering. There is no desire for a war, and, as President Ayub so wisely said, neither country can afford the luxury of a war.
The question which was put to us in various places by various people was, "Why has not the Commonwealth, and particularly Britain, taken an initiative in bringing the war to an end and in settling the Kashmir dispute?" There is much appreciation of the action taken by the Government over the Rann of Kutch dispute. The people appreciate very much the action of my right hon. Friend in achieving that success. But they want to know why we did not go further. They pointed to the fact that a Commonwealth initiative was taken over the Vietnam war, which does not directly concern the Commonwealth and does not take place within the Commonwealth. We were asked in Pakistan," If the Commonwealth Prime Ministers can try to send a peace mission to Vietnam, why has not the Commonwealth, and particularly


Great Britain, directly intervened in what is directly a Commonwealth matter?"
It may be that we are reluctant to intervene in disputes between members of the Commonwealth. The Government should note that other nations are not reluctant to act when there are Commonwealth disputes. Russia has invited the leaders of Pakistan and India to Tashkent next month. Russia is not a disinterested party. It is very significant that Russia is now doing by intervention and by attempting to find a solution to the problem what the Commonwealth is reluctant to do and what the United Nations has failed to do.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to imagine how the prestige of the Commonwealth would go down and the prestige of Russia rise if as a result of the Tashkent discussions an amicable settlement were made between India and Pakistan and Russia were then able to say to the Commonwealth, and particularly to the under-developed nations, that they cannot look to the Commonwealth for any initiative if they have problems but that they can always go to mother Russia who will settle their problems for them in a friendly manner.
How can the Kashmir question be settled? I accept the possible charge that by going to Pakistan and having so friendly and amicable relations with the Pakistanis those of us on the delegation may be biased. But I was biased in favour of self-determination for small nations without ever having considered the Pakistan point of view. When it comes to self-determination for Kashmir, which is, after all, what Pakistan is demanding, I am on Pakistan's side right from the beginning on general principles.
It should be borne in mind that Pakistan is not asking for Kashmir to be handed over to Pakistan. She is asking for the right of self-determination to be applied to Kashmir. She is prepared to accept the result of a plebiscite in Kashmir, whether it be that Kashmir decides to remain with India, or to cede to Pakistan, or to become an independent State, or to submit itself to partition. If India wishes to enhance its reputation as a peaceful nation which it spent many years under Nehru building up, she should agree to accept the holding of

a plebiscite and agree to accept in advance the result of it. If she did, there would be a sigh of relief over the whole sub-continent and over the whole civilised world, for the danger of war between these two neighbours, with all the results coming in from outside if a war should break out, would be removed. India and Pakistan could live at peace with each other and their neighbours with world respect and build up their economies which is so vitally necessary. I am sure that, as a result of the relief engendered, there would be an increase in world aid to both countries.
Would India learn from history—British history and even the history of India itself and how she achieved her independence? It is not possible to keep an unwilling people down by force and by continually refusing negotiation. That has been British history, and India should learn from it and not commit the same mistakes made by British imperialism and colonialism. Is the Indian Government far-sighted enough arid big-minded enough to accept this lesson of history? I am encouraged to think that she might be, because there is a paragraph in The Times of today which gives great hope. It reads:
Mr. Shastri, the Indian Prime Minister, said in Rangoon that he was going to Tashkent … 'with an open mind'".
If he sticks to that, and if the open mind does not exclude discussions on the future of Kashmir, the consequences of the Tashkent talks may be favourable, not only to India, but to Pakistan, and may be favourable to the British Commonwealth. The consequences of a war would be so horrible that we might well be involved in a third world war unless some agreement can be reached. I must, however, express my disappointment that the Commonwealth Relations Office has not intervened but has allowed Russia to take the initiative in these peace talks.

1.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I shall be very brief, for I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. As a member of the delegation which recently returned to this country, I should like to add a few words to what has been so ably said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) and the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger).
The late President Kennedy once spoke of people voting with their feet. He referred, of course, to the refugees and others escaping from Eastern Germany through the barbed wire and across the wall through Berlin. We have seen just this in Pakistan, with refugees coming out of occupied Kashmir with what they could barely carry in their hands, braving enormous physical difficulties and great danger in the minefields and across the mountains. All the people we saw were hale and hearty. They could not have undertaken such a journey had they not been so. But we also heard of the horrible atrocities which always accompany these sorts of political upheavals. As my hon. Friend has said, it is difficult for us to judge how much of these stories is true and how much is exaggerated; but if only one tithe of them were true, it would still be a very terrible situation.
I ask the Secretary of State to do his utmost to get a responsible international body into Kashmir on the ground, in order, by its very presence, to restrain people from doing horrible things and, in a more practical manner, to help people who are destitute, injured or persecuted. I cannot think of a better body to undertake this task than either the Red Cross League or, alternatively, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Either of those two possibilities could fruitfully be followed. I know that a great deal of persuasion would be needed on both sides, both Pakistanis and Indians, to accept such a proposition, but there is no harm in persisting and going for it.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Goole has just said. It is a matter of shame for us in Britain and in the Commonwealth that we have allowed this dispute to go on festering for 18 years. I know very well that great efforts have been made to solve it. Eminent men have come from various quarters of the world, including the Commonwealth, to try to persuade both sides to a reasonable conclusion.
More recently, however, we seem to have given up hope. I urge the Secretary of State to take hope from the success that he and the British Government achieved in the Rann of Kutch and to do something likewise about this intolerable state of affairs, which could break out once more into a real fighting war

all along the borders between India and Pakistan.

1.13 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) on raising this subject. I was a member of a delegation which visited India shortly before the visit of the delegation to Pakistan and I regard it as a good thing that the House should have both sides of the coin.
Wherever we went in India, there was a feeling that Britain had been rather partisan in the recent war. I have to be frank with the House and with my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary in saying that almost daily, whether at breakfast, dinner, tea or any other time, and wherever we were, we had complaints about the B.B.C., about the British Press and even about the statements made by spokesmen of the British Government. Whilst it may well be that some of this was put on for our benefit, there was not the slightest doubt that this was a genuine feeling on the part of Indians.
We were not taken to the war front. One cannot get a picture of the battle situation by visiting a war front when the battle is over. Therefore, whilst it would have been a matter of interest and curiosity for me to have gone to Kashmir, I do not suppose that we would have learned very much. We did, however, learn something about the feelings of the Indian people on the subject of Kashmir. They were rather cross with this country. They thought that if anything, if any sides were to be taken, we should have taken their side.
The Indians said to us, "After all, we are a democracy. Pakistan is a military dictatorship. Surely, you are on the side of democracy. We are a secular State embracing many religions living in peace. Surely, that is a point which should have entered into your consideration. After all, it was Pakistan which started the war by infiltration and then, in early September, by a massive tank attack over the frontier. What we did was merely a response to military action which the Pakistanis had initiated. They were the aggressors and, therefore, Britain should have taken our side."
I shall not comment upon that except to say that it was said to us. At least, there is no doubt that, whatever might be the rights or wrongs of Kashmir, it was the Pakistanis who commenced the war. This indeed was mentioned by our representative at the United Nations, Lord Caradon, who said that he accepted the decision of the United Nations that the infiltration was by regular forces from Pakistan.
Perhaps I may briefly state the attitude of the Indian people on the question of Kashmir. It is not generally realised, perhaps, that if the question of Kashmir could be taken separately, it would not be too difficult a problem. The trouble is that it cannot be taken separately.
India is a secular State with Hindus, Sikhs, Moslems and Christians living together in one community. There are 55 million Moslems living in India. That is to say, it is the third greatest Moslem Power in the world. There are 30 million Christians, apart from the masses of Hindus who live there. Perhaps the greatest achievement of Nehru is that this State exists at all, that this secular State has been maintained and that all these people can live in peace together.
The feeling of the Indians is that what is involved in Kashmir is not simply a question of the self-determination of one country. It is the existence of India. Wherever I went, we found that the people, whether Hindu or Moslem—in some respects, perhaps, Moslems more than Hindus—felt strongly about the question of Kashmir. To them, the cession of Kashmir or part of it to Pakistan was not just a question of a plebiscite, whatever a plebiscite might mean in those circumstances. It was a question which involved their personal security.
After all, 1947 is not very far away. The decision to create a theocratic state in Pakistan contained, in a sense, the seeds of the sort of trouble that has occurred since. Some of it occurred immediately. In 1947, there was the movement of refugees in both directions and the massacres, on both sides. I am not in the least surprised at what the hon. Member for Wavertree has told us about refugees. Nineteen forty-seven is only 18 years away and whatever happened, whether there were atrocities or not—and I should discount most of

the stories of atrocities—the fear is still present on both sides.
There is, for example, the fear of the people of India, and of the Moslems particularly, because they were stronger about this than the Indians, that, "Here we are, living at peace together with the Hindus, in the same towns and villages. If the question of Kashmir is decided upon a religious basis, and suppose that the Hindu refugees begin to come out of Kashmir, as will inevitably happen"—it is happening now— "out of Bengal, what will be the position of the secular State of India? What will be the position of the Moslems?"
The question of Kashmir is tied up with the existence of India as an integral State and with the whole question of the possibility of Hindus, Moslems and Christians living in peace. Whether the State would disintegrate if there were any cession of territory I do not know. I can only tell the House that from my experience it is not on, from a practical point of view. No Government of India which made such a cession would survive for a moment. Mr. Shastri has established himself as a national figure in India mainly upon the basis of resistance to the Pakistanis, whom the Indians accuse of aggression.
I mention this because it is necessary that the Indian point of view should be understood. Much more could be said upon the issue of Kashmir, but this is the basic fact for the Indians. They fed us with all sorts of legalistic arguments, some good and some not so good, but the House should understand the basic fact that, in a sense, the problem originates and emanates from the time when the division took place, to a large extent upon a religious basis.
I look forward to the time when it will be possible to get some sort of union of the whole Indian peninsula. The division may have been inevitable at the time but it contains the seeds of danger. I believe that unification must be the eventual solution. Any short-term measures which will help to stop the fighting should be taken in the meantime. I do not deny the usefulness of sending Red Cross people to both sides in order to obtain the strict operation of the ceasefire and to see that the kind of things that have been taking place—whoever is


responsible—do not continue. But any attempt to impose a final solution upon India and Pakistan—and certainly the imposition of any cession of territory—would be the wrong solution at the wrong time.
I hope that the Government will be prepared to adopt an attitude of nonpartisanship in this matter. If they can get the Indians and Pakistanis to stop their small skirmishes it will be a progressive step. I do not believe that a second round is likely to take place, but what rather frightens me is the military feeling which exists on both sides. There are the same stories of great heroism in India and Pakistan. I am frightened by the enormous resources on both sides, but which both countries can ill afford, which are being diverted from purposes of development to preparation for war. I am sure that the Commonwealth Relations Office has done what it can, but I am anxious that there should be no attempt to pressurise India to accept a final solution. If such an attempt were made it would be disastrous.

1.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottomley): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) for having given the House an opportunity to review the tragic conflict which broke out between India and Pakistan this autumn. I am pleased to have the chance to talk about the part which we might play in the period of uneasy truce which now exists. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for his graphic description of the scene that he found in Pakistan.
I say to all hon. Members on both sides who went on the C.P.A. delegations both to India and Pakistan that they did a very useful job. It was very successful Hon. Members have been able to inform themselves of the situation in the subcontinent—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) has said, in some cases rather adverse reports were made about the British Government. What the hon. Member has heard from the Indians has also been said to me by some Members of the party that went to Pakistan. I am confident that hon. Member on both sides were able to assure the Governments and peoples of both India and Pakistan of

our continuing good will and determination to continue to help them in their urgent task of reconciliation and of nation-building.
We were very distressed by the conflict. It seemed to us to be a tragedy of the first magnitude that these two Commonwealth countries should be waging war against each other. When we think of villages in India and Pakistan where the people live at subsistence level we realise the real and meaningful struggle which faces the Governments both of India and Pakistan today. The battle against poverty and disease in both countries is daunting enough, but that is a real struggle and one worth fighting. It is one which both Government have, to their eternal credit, done much to wage. But, as they both recognise, there is still a lot to do.
The history of the conflict is well known to the House and it is not necessary to repeat it. I will only say that it has been our policy, since its outset, to give our utmost support to the efforts of the United Nations, first to bring about a cease-fire and then to arrange a disengagement and the withdrawal of the opposing armies. My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger) who led the mission to Pakistan with distinction, has told me how unfortunate it is that the Commonwealth did not take the initiative. I can tell him that we considered earnestly, in consultation with our other Commonwealth colleagues, whether the Commonwealth should undertake some initiative to try to stop this tragic war between two of its members. There were several reasons why we decided at the time not to suggest such an initiative.
First, the United Nations Security Council became seized of the conflict at a very early stage, and it was clear that all the countries represented on the Council—including, I am glad to say, the Soviet Union—were determined to do all in their power to bring about a prompt end to the hostilities. Then, a United Nations observer group, under the able and experienced command of General Nimmo of Australia, was already on the spot in Kashmir. This needed only expansion and reinforcement in order to be able to operate over all the sectors of hostilities. Finally, we thought it right not to cut across the personal efforts of the Secretary-General, who visited the


sub-continent and dealt directly with both Governments.
As the hon. Member for Wavertree rightly said, the cease-fire which the Security Council secured at the end of September has been an uneasy one. The United Nations observers, over the past weeks, have catalogued a succession of breaches by both sides. In the early days of the cease-fire, before the United Nations observers could be deployed over the widely spread battlefields, it was natural that incidents should be provoked. The desire of local commanders to improve their tactical positions and secure themselves against a recurrence of hostilities was understandable. That stage has passed, but the incidents still occur.
Neither side has a desire to see a fresh round of large-scale hostilities; on the contrary, I believe that both are only too well aware what a disaster this would be for them. But I am sure that as long as the two armies are face to face in their present positions—often only yards apart, and both in possession of areas of the other's territory—there is a danger of the renewal of more general hostilities.
This is why it remains so urgently necessary that there should be a disengagement of the two armies and a withdrawal of the positions which they held before the conflict began. Here again, we have thought it right to give our fullest support to the United Nations to try to reach this solution.
The House will know that the Secretary-General's representative, Brigadier-General Marambio, of Chile, is now in the sub-continent, charged with drawing up a withdrawal plan for agreement by both Governments, to be implemented at the earliest possible date. I hope that, in a spirit of wise statesmanship, the two Governments will feel able to give their unstinted co-operation to General Marambio so that a plan for complete and simultaneous withdrawal in all sectors can be drawn up and executed in accordance with the directions of the Security Council.
The hon. Member for Wavertree mentioned encounters with refugees while the C.P.A. party was visiting the sub-continent. As he rightly said, the difficulty is to distinguish fact from rumour and I agree with his comments about the dangers which these rumours in them-

selves entail. War always brings refugees in its train and there are many personal hardships. Of course, the refugee problem is not confined to one side alone. According to published figures which we are unable to check, about 200,000 people on each side of the border have been forced to leave their homes.
All these people, on whatever side, deserve our sympathy and material support in the short term, through organisations like the Red Cross. The International Red Cross is aware of the problem and I was glad to learn that the British Red Cross has, in response to an appeal from the International Committee in Geneva, already made a contribution of £16,000 for relief purposes.
Although there is much for refugee organisations to do to relieve this hardship, the best way to help the refugees in the longer term is to create conditions in which they can return to their homes. This underlines the necessity I have mentioned for early agreement by both armies on withdrawals from the areas which they have seized since the start of the conflict.
The hon. Member for Wavertree referred to the need for a final settlement of the differences, notably those over Kashmir, which have so unhappily persisted between the two countries since their independence. While the present bitterness and tensions remain, and the armies still confront each other in their battle positions, there is little hope, I fear, of establishing an atmosphere of trust and good will.
But this atmosphere is essential if there is to be any progress over the political problems which underlay the recent conflict. When the withdrawals have taken place, however, the Security Council will be able to proceed in accordance with the resolution of 20th September, which calls for a consideration of the underlying political problems. I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will play a full part in that consideration. We shall, as in the past, do whatever we can to assist India and Pakistan to come to a peaceful accommodation with one another.
There may yet be a rôle for the Commonwealth to play. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Goole that we shall keep the possibility in mind and


pursue it if suitable circumstances arise. I am sure that the House will agree that we welcome the interest of the Soviet Government in this matter and the readiness of Mr. Shastri and President Ayub to meet at Tashkent on 4th January on the initiative of the Soviet Government. We understand that both sides have agreed that the whole range of India-Pakistan problems should be discussed at this meeting.
We hope that this will be the first step towards a happier relationship between India and Pakistan. If normal diplomatic relations can be resumed and there can be an early agreement on a withdrawal plan, this will be a great step forward. We hope that both countries will be able to agree to repair the damage done to each others and to neutral interests by the measures they have taken against shipping, maritime trade and property, both during the fighting and subsequently.
If these areas of agreement can be widened, if both sides exercise patience and restraint in what are bound to be uneasy times, I am confident that the two Governments will be able to create an area of peace and stability in the subcontinent. Then their efforts can be devoted to the political and economic advancement which their peoples so earnestly desire. Britain has done a great deal in the past to help further this advancement and we shall continue to show in a practical way as far as we can that we retain a deep concern for the well-being and development of these two countries, with whom we have had such a deep and long historical association. Many of us on both sides of the House have had a personal association with them. I am sure that it is in this spirit that both sides join together today to resolve to do whatever we can to restore this friendship between these two great Commonwealth countries and so end the conflict which at present exists.

ANTI-SUBMARINE TRAINING SCHOOL, LONDONDERRY

1.36 p.m.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: On 26th October the Minister of Defence for the Navy made a sombre statement reflecting his intention to close down the Joint Anti-Submarine Training School at Londonderry, and I am grateful to have the opportunity of discussing this matter today. I want, first, to place on record certain facts and then ask the Minister some questions.
The unemployment figure for Northern Ireland has risen in the last month by about 4,000, which is a great deal, even allowing for seasonal or "unseasonal" factors. In Londonderry, the figure, which sometimes rises even further than it has risen in the last month, is about 11 per cent. I am sure all hon. Members will agree that this is a serious figure.
It is partly due to the fact that Londonderry is dependent on such volatile industries as shirt-making and the products of Monarch Electric. Anyway Londonderry's figure is about 11 per cent. Yet the submarine school is to be taken from Londonderry to Devonport, where, I understand, the unemployment figure is about 2 per cent. If I am wrong, no doubt the Minister will correct me. This is to be done, according to the Minister, so as to save £400,000. Does the Minister query that figure? I think that it is in his own statement. If he does not like that figure, I will say instead that it means a saving of one-fortieth of 1 per cent. of the total defence expenditure. The capital cost at Plymouth will be less than £500,000 we are told, though I find very few people connected either with Londonderry or Devonport who have any confidence at all in either of these figures. They believe that the cost will far exceed what so far has been stated.
The Minister stayed, on 26th October, for a small part of the Northern Ireland debate which followed his statement and in which we showed our feelings about the proposed move. However, despite the long drawn out struggle which preceded the announcement, reaction in Ulster and even in Londonderry was one of deep shock.
Perhaps I may illustrate this by quoting from one of the provincial papers, the


headlines of which read, "Derry is stunned." The Mayor of Londonderry, who played a notable part with me in the campaign to retain the base, said:
I am appalled at the announcement—I can't understand why the Westminster Government has done this. Reason seems to be on our side. This seems to be a purely political decision.
The Secretary of the Londonderry Trade Union Council, who is not necessarily a member of my party, said:
It is very bad news for the city. I don't accept that redundancy will be confined to 400.
Mr. George Hamill of the Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union said that it was deplorable that the Government had decided to close H.M.S. Sea Eagle, and added:
…it is particularly deplorable that it is a Labour Government which has given Londonderry this body blow. All the petitions protests and deputations had been of no avail.
It is deplorable, indeed, that a Government of any colour should have taken this decision, if decision it is to remain. It is demonstrably destructive on social and economic grounds, questionable and indeed questioned on defence grounds.
The Minister knows full well that even among his own advisers there is not general accord as to the desirability of making this move. I do not propose again to relate in detail all the strategic advantages of keeping the school at Londonderry, such as the proximity of deep water, which is so much closer than off the South Coast, the proximity of the Scottish waters in which the submarines of the future are likely to be stationed, and the closeness of the Bally Kelly R.A.F. station, which has made the whole project such a great success as a joint Services operation. One may well contrast that situation that with distance between Devonport and St. Mawgan, which I understand is the closest R.A.F. station to that area. There are also the crowded maritime conditions off the South Coast in which there may be difficulty when trying out for the first time new and sophisticated methods of detection.
All these reasons for retention have been set out by myself and others in the Navy Estimates debate and on other occasions since then. I cannot pretend that I think that they have been sufficiently

or satisfactorily answered—not to my satisfaction, anyway. The Minister has an opportunity to make amends today. However, I will reiterate certain of the economic and social facts of the situation. Perhaps I may first deal a little further with the astonishment which the announcement produced in Northern Ireland. This may have been partly due to the appearance on television screens in thousands of homes in Londonderry and elsewhere in the province in August, 1964, of the ebullient figure of the First Secretary, who declared roundly that not only could we in Northern Ireland build ships and aircraft in the years ahead—he had not dreamed of the H.S.681 cancellation at this stage nor heard the stealthy approach of Plowden—but went on,
You want all your natural resources, you know, the ports, the harbours and all that, to be used.
He continued engagingly,
We shall want that, too, and I am quite sure we will neither of us let politics get in our hair. No problem at all".
he declared in forceful style.
A great deal of that was taken at its face value in Londonderry, and perhaps I took too much of it at its face value, too, because, naïvely, I found myself soon after the present Administration had taken office asking a Question as to what increased naval activity could be expected in the Port of Londonderry. It was then that the First Secretary's "No problem" began to appear as the "No promise" that it was. The answer, paraphrased, was "Nil". From then on hopes began to falter and the story of the closing began to spread.
There is, I think, no need to go over the history of last year, the speeches, the Questions, the deputations, the visits to No. 10 Downing Street by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and the Attorney-General. All that is fresh in the Minister's mind. No need to labour the fate, if closure proceeds, of several hundred men, many of them unskilled, and without experience of work anywhere save with the Navy. No need to dwell again on the loss of spending power to the city, estimated by some at £1¼million. That is a difficult figure to estimate, but that is the estimate made by some people. A proprietor of a large store


in Londonderry told me over the weekend that in that store he had taken a hundred thousand dollars a year. This sounds a very large figure, and no doubt it was due to the very welcome visits of the crews and personnel of N.A.T.O. ships which come to the base.
If there is something wrong with the Port of Londonderry or something wrong with the facilities, let us be told; because if there is something which does not meet the Navy's requirements there, I do not doubt that it would be rectified by a more-than-willing Harbour Board, which has already done a great deal and has spent £700,000 over the last few years in improving and developing the harbour. I do not doubt that the board would be delighted to do more if it were told exactly what was required.
There are certain specific questions which I should like to put to the Minister. First, is there anything at all in rumour that the irrationality of this whole project, this move, is becoming increasingly recognised in official and expert circles and that what amounts to a moratorium on the arrangements for transfer is now in effect? Is there any truth in that? Secondly, will he say whether in this whole matter there comes a point of no return? By that I mean does there come a time, when something is transferred, upon which it would be difficult to go back and put the whole process into reverse. We all know that changes of policy occur from time to time under any Government as world conditions change, but is there in this case any fixed point of no return? When is the transfer likely to begin?
In the past we have had some differences of opinion about the number of civilians involved in this closure, if it is to take place, and I do not want to repeat any of that this afternoon, except to ask the Minister to give a categorical assurance in so far as two places are concerned. I refer to the Lisahally Fuel Depôt and the Kilnappy Armament Depôt. Are those employed there to remain undisturbed or not? Can the Minister tell us what their future is likely to be and how long a future they have? This point has been disturbing many minds in Londonderry, for there are many who are uncertain whether the closing of the joint anti-submarine school

itself will inevitably, in the end, lead to the closing of these other establishments. Perhaps he could set some doubts at rest this afternoon on that subject.
What of the employees at J.A.S.S. itself? I imagine that it has not yet been possible to ascertain how many established people are likely to accept transfer when and if that occurs. I gather that those who do not accept, if under the age of 50, are eligible for gratuity—and I hope that I am right. If they are over 50, I understand they are eligible for a deferred payment at the age of 60 of the pension which has accrued at the time of discharge. I gather from a reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)—I am glad to see him here this afternoon—that there are 180 affected who are unestablished and that, of these, 120 have served less than five years and are therefore not due any gratuity of any sort.
When he made his announcement—and it has since been repeated by the Home Secretary and others—the Minister said that every effort to bring new employment to the Londonderry area would be made. He and the Home Office—perhaps the Home Office in particular—have a very special responsibility in this matter which we do not intend to allow them to shrug off. Frankly, I think that if the Home Office had shown slightly stronger opposition to this move it would never have taken place. We do not think that they have shown the strength in defence of this establishment which we might have expected from them. I should like to ask the Minister to tell us how far other Departments have been circularised to try to find employment for these men if the transfer is to go on.
More important, if they do not intend to relent, let us be told what the Government have in mind by way of alternative employment for the area as a whole. What have the Departments said? What did the War Office say? What will happen to the buildings if the school is moved? How will Ministers fulfil the pledge which he gave us on 26th October—because we intend to hold them to it. Do they believe that they will find anything—I hope that they will—which will provide the same amount of employment and anything like the same spending power in a city which so badly needs that spending


power? Here I might perhaps fairly quote Mr. Quinn of the Londonderry Trades Union Council, because I think there is point in what he said. He said that the Minister had underestimated the seriousness of the situation, and he continued,
If an industry can be produced suddenly at this stage, why was it not produced long ago when Derry needed it so much?".
Incidentally, what has happened to all the science-based Government industries which were such a powerful magnet in the Labour Party's manifesto?
Another, perhaps smaller, point has been raised with me in the last few days. The Londonderry Chamber of Commerce has written to me saying that it has heard that there is a shortage of labour for the repair of ships at Barrow-in-Furness. If that is true, is it not possible for some of those ships to be sent to Londonderry, where there is an abundance of skill, splendid facilities and a great deal of experience? This would be one way by which the Minister could, in a small sense, make amends—although I repeat, only in a small sense.
I have been speaking I hope extremely moderately about this today, and not with that emotion of which I was accused on another occasion. If I did speak with emotion on another occasion it was because I felt emotional about this, for it is indeed a serious matter for Londonderry. There are sound reasons why the Minister should retract this decision. It is accepted in all parts of the House that defence requirements alter rapidly. No one would regard a reversal of his policy as a retreat for the Government. If the Government do change their mind on this issue they will, in the view of many, by no means all laymen, be regarded as acting in the national interest and such an action would be hailed in Ulster as a sign of humanity and an indication that their preelection promises, their regional professions, were not just electoral window dressing. I regret I am surprised that no other Ministers are present because this is indeed a regional test for the whole Government.
We in Northern Ireland take a great pride in our link with the armed forces. We regard it of prime importance to maintain our present visible link with them. We do not want to see a retreat of Her Majesty's

Forces from Northern Ireland or a contraction of Service establishments there. Since the announcement of 26th October we have also heard the news about the Territorial Army and I fear that all these things may, in future, have an effect on recruitment in a loyal part of the United Kingdom, an area which has a very high tradition of service. I trust that these matters will be borne in mind.
We are holding this short debate against a background of a rise in unemployment in the area last month, in the shadow of the Plowden Report, with its prediction that there will be 3,000 to 4,000 redundancies in the local aircraft factory by the end of 1966, and in the light of the fact that 1,000 men have been paid off in the shipyards of Belfast in the last four weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) is here this afternoon as these worries are very much in his mind.
This is a serious situation and this afternoon the Minister has an opportunity to afford some relief to the very real anxieties which exist. I beg him to face up to the consequences of what he is doing to the economy of the whole of north-west Ulster, which we desperately want to see expanded, and I earnestly beg him to return to his colleagues and think again on this issue. Finally let me tell him that neither I nor my colleagues will accept the closure of the school until the last shred of hope has been banished.

1.56 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I intervene briefly. I must, first, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark), who has been fighting this battle for some years, particularly in the last 12 months, with a skill and tenacity that is greatly admired at home and particularly in his constituency. This is a matter of very great importance to the constituency of Londonderry, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it has a wider importance and it is regarded in Ulster as a test case of the Government's sincerity about regional development.
Prior to the General Election, we had many bright and hopeful sayings by Labour hon. Members—in Northern Ireland and outside it, particularly by visitors to the country—about the future.


My hon. Friend has already quoted the First Secretary. Some equally important remarks were made by the hon. Gentleman who is now the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, although these words were quoted in the early hours of a March morning by my hon. Friend. The Joint Under-Secretary said:
Unless the Government take effective steps to reverse the trends of industrial location we shall see two nations again, divided this time not by harsh class inequalities but by geography.
Against the background of that sort of promise, we in Ulster view the decision about the anti-submarine school at Londonderry with considerable concern. It is important to Londonderry and its surroundings. My hon. Friend made a remarkably cogent and heartrending case which, if there is a shred of humanity left in the Government, should make them want to review their decision in this matter.
Above all, as my hon. Friend said, it is a test case. It is the very first issue which has arisen whereby the employment situation and the regional development argument can be taken into account and given due weight by the Government, as they promised to do before the election. Here is a case where—even if one concedes to the Minister that the strategic arguments of defence are nicely balanced; although I do not so concede because my hon. Friend and others have made out an almost overwhelming case the other way—the regional development argument could be held by the Government, if they are in desperate earnest about regional development, to have swayed the issue, as it did with their predecessors.
One could perhaps forgive the present Government their decision in this matter if it could be shown that the former Conservative Government had been on the point of reaching the same conclusions; if the arguments had been prepared in advance and that the former Government were, in any case, about to close the school. But the reverse is the case. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in Londonderry in October:
When the closure of the Sea Eagle base was raised on at least two occasions with us as a Government we refused to allow the

closure and believed that regional considerations were paramount. That, I think, is stilt the case.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) reinforced this view during the Northern Ireland debate. In other words, the former Conservative Administration had decided that the defence and regional development arguments were so finely balanced that the regional development argument should prevail. That was based on the unemployment situation in Londonderry in particular, the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland as a whole and the fact that the trading influence which this base has on the general prosperity of the area must be paramount. Now the present Government have decided to move the base to the already overcrowded South of England.
My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry mentioned a strategic argument and, like him, I do not want to traverse all the matters concerned with this issue. However, one of considerable importance struck me; that apart from all its other advantages, Londonderry is the only naval base in the United Kingdom which has very close proximity to an airfield.
As far as I know, it is the only base that has an airfield within about 20 minutes' drive along a good road. If one is training personnel in joint operations—which, presumably, is the purpose of the exercise—this must be an overwhelming argument. As to Devonport, I understand that the airfield at St. Mawgan can be as much as four hours' drive along narrow overcrowded roads away from the base. If one realises the advantages there are in briefing before an exercise and exchanging views after the exercise has taken place, this must be a very important argument, and I am surprised that it did not weigh more.
There are all the other arguments that have already been deployed. The argument used by the Minister in the Northern Ireland debate was the need for concentrating these facilities. I should have thought that that argument was equally good in reverse; that in the interests of regional development and of dispersal, it would have been wiser to have concentrated anti-submarine training in the North-West Approaches. The proximity of the Scottish base, the proximity of Holy Loch, the proximity


of deep water, and all the rest, would seem to me to lend every weight to the argument to do this, and to lend weight to the idea that, while the Defence Review was under consideration, and pending its results, it was unwise to take the decision to close the base.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, and others, suggested—and the suspicion is undoubtedly in our minds—that the reason for the decision is that the advice given by the admirals was coloured by the fact that they regard Devonport as a nice, convenient place for them to carry out their duties, and not too far from London. I ask that when next the Minister talks to the admirals he points out that Londonderry is only a little more than an hour away from London. It has much pleasanter surroundings than Devonport. It has better facilities of every kind. It is at present only one hour's flight from London to Aldergrove, but if my hon. Friend has his way one hopes that there will soon be another airport somewhat nearer Derry. So that even that sort of special pleading, if it has taken place or has been colouring the advice given to the Minister, is not very well founded.
As my hon. Friend has said, this is a very serious matter for his constituency and for the whole of Northern Ireland, in that since we have had this decision without, as we think, due weight being put on the regional argument, it augurs ill in our minds for decisions that are the direct responsibility of Her Majesty's Government as they affect the economy of Northern Ireland. It adds tremendously to our anxieties about the future of our aircraft industry in Belfast, and to our anxieties for the fture generally.
I say to the Minister, "Please do not be afraid of changing your mind." We from Northern Ireland would not for a moment seek to make any kind of political capital if the Minister did so change his mind. We would not seek to taunt him with indecision, or anything like that. We would be only too grateful if he were now to say that he would look at the matter again; if he would now say that at any rate there would be a standstill for a while; that, at least, if he could not grant a reprieve, he would grant us a stay of execution, so that the matter might be considered again, and further representations made. As it is

the festive season, perhaps he would give us that assurance as a Christmas present.

2.5 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Christopher Mayhew): I should like to begin by associating myself with the congratulations offered by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) to his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) on his persistence in raising this matter at every possible opportunity. Indeed, I must also congratulate the hon. Member for Londonderry on his luck in the opportunities he seems to have had in raising the subject in this House and elsewhere.
I wonder whether the hon. and gallant Member will also join with me in acknowledging that his hon. Friend did not produce any new arguments or facts to sustain his case this afternoon——

Mr. Chichester-Clark: It does not need any.

Mr. Mayhew: Whether his case needs new facts or arguments, I do not know, but it makes it a little difficult for me to depart from the reply on this subject that I have given on very many occasions, which I find completely conclusive, and which has been accepted as conclusive by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The hon. and gallant Member suggested that the Opposition, officially, are strongly against the closure of "Sea Eagle". I was rather struck by the report in the Daily Telegraph on 27th October after our last debate. The Daily Telegraph cannot always be accepted as inaccurate on matters concerning the Conservative Party. Its political correspondent said:
Though there were … objections from the Opposition Front Bench, strongly reinforced by the Northern Ireland M.Ps., there is reason to believe that the Shadow Cabinet regarded the Government's decision to move the base to Plymouth as inevitable. Former Service Ministers are aware that it can be defended on operational as well as financial grounds.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The Daily Telegraph may well have carried that report, but I have no doubt that the Minister is an assiduous reader of that newspaper and will have seen that this impression was very fairly contradicted by a subsequent article. Indeed, there was no need for the hon. Gentleman to


read that article, because he had only to read the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) at the end of the October debate—and it is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not stay to hear it. In any case, if he had read that speech, he would have known our attitude.

Mr. Mayhew: I think that I have read everything that has been written, and certainly everything that has been said in this House, on the subject. Honestly, I do not know whether the House would wish me to detail the overwhelming financial and operational reasons why the Navy feels obliged to move the base from Londonderry to Plymouth. The hon. Member for Londonderry, not unfairly, said, "If there is something wrong with the Port of Londonderry, let us be told," but at no stage have we suggested that there is something wrong with the Port of Londonderry itself. It is the situation of Londonderry which, as I have explained so often, makes this move inevitable.
I begin, though, by saying frankly that there has been no change since we last discussed this subject on 26th October. I do not know of rumours that there is to be a moratorium. I have not heard of one. There is no substance in them. I regret to have to tell the hon. Member the situations stands now as it stood on 26th October.
On the other question about the fuel establishment at Lisahally and the Kilnappy naval depôt, I can say that we have no proposals in mind to close these establishments. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Will the Minister go a little further to allay some anxiety and say that, if the Joint Anti-Submarine Training School does go, that will not in any way imperil the long-term future of those other establishments?

Mr. Mayhew: I say, we have no proposals to move those establishments, and that is quite irrespective of the move to Plymouth.
Like the hon. Member, I will not go over the history of the controversy—the numerous deputations that have been received, including the personal intervention by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland with our own Prime Minister.

But he will agree with me that it is a matter which has been thrashed out exhaustively over a considerable period of time, and I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will accept that this is no hasty decision. I went there myself, as did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, before the decision was reached in order to meet the people locally and satisfy myself at first hand that no other way out was possible.
Perhaps I could remind the House that the tasks of the school are to train in anti-submarine operations those ships and aircraft, both R.N. and R.A.F., which have completed their basic anti-submarine training and to instruct R.N. and R.A.F. officers in anti-submarine warfare. It develops and evaluates anti-submarine tactics and recommends new anti-submarine tactical instructions. It assesses the capabilities of new anti-submarine equipment and weapons after acceptance for service, and determines operational techniques for them. It has joint Naval and R.A.F. directors.
Because so many tasks for which the submarines are needed have to be carried out in the South, most of the submarines are based on either Plymouth or Portsmouth today, and they waste much valuable time in travelling from their bases to Londonderry for courses at the school. If that could be avoided, it would be equivalent to an increase of about 1½ hulls to the submarine fleet. Moreover, when the school is at Plymouth, we will be able to make much better and more efficient use of the submarine while she is in the exercise area by co-ordinating the various anti-submarine training activities that go on in the area.
At present, quite a large part of the submarine's time has to be wasted, even after she arrives at Londonderry. The destroyers and frigates which have to carry out the training also waste time on passage, and here, too, the wasted time is equivalent to 1½ ships. Because submarines, destroyers and frigates have not been available, we have already had to reduce our courses at Londonderry from eight a year to six a year, and we have had to reduce the length of each course from four weeks to three weeks.
If the school is not moved, we shall simply have to make further reductions,


because our submarine fleet is getting smaller. The effect would be to reduce out anti-submarine warfare ability to an unacceptable extent, and, but for the move, the school itself would have withered and died for lack of adequate work.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that topic, will he say whether future submarines, our atomic hunter-killers, are also going to be based in the south of England?

Mr. Mayhew: For a long period of time the majority of our submarines will be based in the South-West. It is true that the hunter-killers, and certainly the Polaris, will be up in the North. But there are different factors here. The speed of nuclear-powered submarines makes a great difference to the business of moving long distances, for example, down to the South-West. That compensates for the fact that the weight of our submarine fleet as a whole over many years may go northwards. However, they will be nuclear submarines, capable of moving much more quickly than the present conventional ones can. We are quite convinced that the proper level of training standards can only be ensured if we make better use of our submarines and escorts, and that means moving the school.
In addition to the savings that I have already mentioned, 1½ submarines and 1½ destroyers or frigates, the move will save up to 20 officers and some 200 ratings. It allows us to get maximum use out of a new anti-submarine tactical trainer, which itself reduces the need for submarines for training, instead of the 12 per cent. use which is all that we could give it at Londonderry—too little to justify its provision for J.A.A.S. alone.
The hon. Member for Londonderry was not far out in his estimate. The move will save between £400,000 and £500,000 a year in running costs. excluding the 1½ ships and the 1½ submarines. I would ask hon. Members opposite to realise that, in relation to that sum, to keep the school there with all these financial disadvantages would be wrong. I am convinced that if they themselves had the responsibility for the decision, they would not feel that any other was justified. In my

view, it would be a gross extravagance in terms of public money and resources not to make this move.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Might I ask my hon. Friend, is not the logic of his argument that the Polaris submarine should come to the South-West too?

Mr. Mayhew: The logic has nothing whatever to do with the Polaris submarine.
I do not want to detain the House too long. May I finally come on to the number of civilian employees and the provisions for them which the hon. Member for Londonderry mentioned?
I think that we have ironed out the original discrepancy in the figures as a result of the last debate. It has brought down the total of civilians who are to be affected by the move to about 480. Of those, about 250 were established men who would be offered transfer to other jobs in Government service. That left about 230 unestablished men, and the number of those who would eventually have to be discharged on redundancy depended on their and our success over the next two or three years in finding and providing new jobs for them. There is no immediate rundown, and it will be over the next two or three years.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South on 24th November, the number has already come down by about 50 at the most recent count, compared with the figure of 230 that we had been using for consistency's sake. Of the remaining 180, about 120 have less than five years' service. I must say that I am not unhappy to find that the figure is declining. As long as it keeps declining, I do not think that any of us will be upset about it.
That is the problem against which we have to measure the annual extra cost of being at Londonderry which, overall, is not less than £1 million a year. The difficulty of finding jobs for that number of men has to be weighed against the £1 million plus that we save by the move.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Has the Minister been able to evaluate the number of established personnel who are likely to accept transfer, or has he not started that process?

Mr. Mayhew: The process has not started. I wish that I could say that it would be easy for all to accept transfer, but it will not be. I cannot give an estimate of the numbers involved.
As the hon. Member said, the finding of new work to go to Londonderry is primarily a matter for the Department of Economic Affairs and the Home Office. He will have noted the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the debate on 26th October. Of course, we offer jobs to the established men.
The hon. Member mentioned provision for pensions and gratuities. Those who do not want to accept transfer are eligible, if they are under 60, for a gratuity. If they are over 50 but under 60, they are eligible for deferred payment of any pension accrued at the date of discharge. Unestablished men who have to be discharged on redundancy are eligible for a gratuity, provided they have been working there for more than five years.
Over the last years, those arrangements have had to stand the strain of a very sizeable rundown of Naval civilian establishments. During the last eight years, by streamlining our shore support, the Navy has reduced the number of United Kingdom based industrial civilian employees by over 19,000. We have done it with a minimum redundancy problem by handling it carefully on an individual basis. That 19,000 has to be compared with the very much smaller figure that we are having to handle now, and we have two or three years for my right hon. Friends to bring into operation the action which the Home Secretary described in the last debate, designed towards increasing the level of employment in Northern Ireland.
If I may say so, I thought that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South was a little hard on my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. He would be the last to claim that his regional policy had been 100 per cent. successful so far, but no previous Government have done half as much as he has in this business of regional planning.
I find extremely striking the figures quoted by the Home Secretary in the last debate about the bringing of new industry to Northern Ireland and the fact that at that time there were more men in jobs in Northern Ireland than ever before. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course."] And at that time there had been a slow but steady and prolonged decrease in the percentage of unemployment in Northern Ireland, to which in that debate hon. Members paid tribute. I thought that the strictures cast by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South were unfair——

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Mayhew: I have given way many times and I have been given instructions that as we are running a little late I must conclude as quickly as possible. I know that I have not satisfied some hon. Members opposite but I claim that on the facts which I have given about the operational advantages and financial advantages of moving, and on the statement by the Home Secretary in the last debate, this, unfortunately, is the only course. No one wanted to do this. We wanted to maintain our connection with Londonderry. It was a good and fruitful connection and was much prized on both sides, but on the facts given we had no alternative but to move to Plymouth.

NORTH OF SCOTLAND (TRANSPORT)

2.22 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: This is a timely moment to consider the question of transport in the north of Scotland. In the past few weeks there has been considerable discontent in parts of the North about the dislocation of services by both road and rail. First, I should like to sketch briefly the general picture.
On the subject of roads in the North, one could generalise by saying that where the countryside is flat and easy the roads are good but where it is mountainous and difficult the roads are usually narrow, twisted, often steep and hazardous in winter. The north of Scotland, broadly, has been affected more than anywhere else in Britain by the increased cost of transport by road, in particular the higher fuel duty and the increased tax on commercial vehicles imposed this year. Nowhere else in the country are such distances involved in ordinary life in the supply of goods and services. Those who live north of the Grampians have a mountain barrier between them and the South. Routes to and from the South must be either round the east coast or through the central cleft of the Grampians.
As for railways, starting from the North, there are lines north and west to Inverness, to Wick and to the Kyle of Lochalsh respectively. These were on Dr. Beeching's list but nearly two years ago it was decided by the Conservative Government that they should be retained. This winter they are already proving their value. I mention them because I find that outside the north of Scotland, because of the anxiety at the time, there is a misapprehension that these lines have disappeared. They are still there.
Then there are the lines from Inverness to Aberdeen and from Inverness south to Perth. These were not on Dr. Beeching's list. On the Inverness-Aberdeen line of 108 miles there was instituted about five years ago a fast diesel passenger service. I remember taking part in the inaugural run with various dignitaries and railways enthusiasts. That service has been highly successful during the past five years. Because there are stretches of single line

it has required a system of transferring tokens—the system which avoids head-on collisions—at speed instead of having to stop the train. These trains have built up a high reputation for speed and punctuality but in the last two months they have been thoroughly disrupted, causing great dissatisfaction.
The reason for this dislocation has been the closure of two other lines. These were on Dr. Beeching's list and are those from Aviemore to Forres, about 35 miles, and from Aviemore to Craigellachie, about 30 miles. When the present Government came into office a decision had been taken already to close the Craigellachie (Speyside) line. The present Minister of Transport later decided the fate of the other and more important line and announced the closure last March.
The right hon. Gentleman took the decision knowing that the Transport Users' Consultative Committee had reported, as stated in the Minister's letter announcing the closure, that
extreme hardship would be caused if the service were withdrawn between Aviemore and Grantown-on-Spey".
This is the section of the line, over one-third, which is in Inverness-shire. About half, 15 miles, of the other line is also in Inverness-shire, and this is where I come to my difference with the Minister over geography. These two substantial stretches of line, one of which was the subject of the "extreme hardship" report, lie within the crofting counties and are, as far as I know, the first in the Highlands to have been closed since the Beeching Report.
Both passenger and freight services were terminated in October, two months ago. In his speech in the debate on the Address on 9th November, in which I touched on several subjects in both foreign and domestic affairs, I compared extracts from the Labour Party manifesto with what had happened during the subsequent year. I made what, in such a speech, had to be a brief reference to the closing of these two railway lines. I am glad now to be able to describe this in some detail.
About three weeks after my speech the Minister suddenly announced that I had made an untrue statement because these were not the first closures in the Highlands. He cited stations which had been closed, but I was not talking about stations. There is a great difference


between closing stations and closing lines, as everyone in the North is well aware. Everything which the Minister has subsequently adduced has confirmed my original statement. Other closures to which the Minister has referred are well outside the area officially recognised and defined as the Highlands.
When the Minister was citing a line at Peterhead I realised that we were talking about different things. By the Highlands I mean the crofting counties. The Minister—and I am sorry that he is not here today—must have been away from the Scottish Grand Committee too long if he has forgotten this. Others of us have had the benefit of a strong reminder only this year, with the Highland Development Bill. I trust that the Minister will now see that my statement was correct, although it may have been unexpected and unpalatable to some people who have not been following events in the area.
The closure of the Aviemore-Forres line makes an interesting case study. Ever since the Beeching Report, my own view, publicly expressed, has been not simply and obstinately that the line should be retained but that if it is to be closed adequate alternative services must be provided, and this would be a major operation. Therefore, if the Parliamentary Secretary has prepared a case on the basis that I have been opposing the closure itself he can tear up that part of his speech. My case has always been that these lines could be closed only if there were adequate alternative services, and this is what I and others have said of Scotland as a whole. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will answer that case. Indeed, it was the local voices of the Labour Party who were saying over a year ago that if a Labour Government were returned, as they were, lines which were still running, like these, would be kept. Apparently, this was a misinterpretation of the relevant part of the Labour Party manifesto.
The Minister's decision of last March involved certain conditions regarding alternative services, but it was doubtful, on reading them, how they would be put into operation. For example, one condition was the establishment of a new bus service over Dava Moor on a road over which there had never before been a bus service. British Railways tried to close

the line at short notice on 5th July, but they were prevented by the Minister, quite rightly, because I and others were able to point out that there was no possibility of the conditions being fulfilled by that date. The Parliamentary Secretary courteously informed me at the time that, when the closure was announced again, there would be adequate notice—normally, at least a month—but, despite that, on the next occasion British Railways gave only 10 days' notice. Upon representations being made, the Minister again postponed the matter but by only a week.
Since then there have been many complaints from a wide area in the north of Scotland about the resulting dislocation and the bad services. The main burden of the case is that there is no adequate alternative service and that no proper arrangements were made beforehand to provide one. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker), who is in his place now, has received many complaints, and I understand that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnston) has received many complaints. No doubt other hon. Members here representing the north of Scotland have received similar complaints from their constituents.
We have had many examples given to us of buses on the new service being stuck in snow and ice, being late or not running at all. There have been complaints of no facilities for luggage, and of lack of heating and lighting in the buses. I always pass on these complaints to the Ministry, and I know that the Ministry has been doing its best and is managing to get some improvement on the last three points of complaint.
The Aberdeen-Inverness service has been dislocated by the late running of trains. I sat for 40 minutes in a train in Inverness on 4th December and found myself among a number of angry passengers. The explanation I received from British Railways in Scotland said that it was because of the new timings made necessary by the closure of the AviemoreForres line, in order to keep the connections and collect the mail. Clearly, this is a result of the closure on which the Minister took the decision. Although it involves the General Post Office and British Railways as well, it is the Minister's responsibility to go into it with the


Post Office and British Railways to make sure that the dislocation is put right.
I can understand that British Railways have to make sure that the mail catches the train, but these new arrangements simply are not working, and on a line which has stretches of single track, if one train is late then, because trains can pass each other only at certain points, the whole programme in the opposite direction, and later in the day, is upset.
As regards the buses, I had intended to give a short chronicle of events over a few days, but, in view of the shortness of time now available, I shall not do so. Since the middle of November, buses have either not been running because they got so far and the drivers then decided that it was too dangerous to continue in the conditions on Dava Moor, a high area of bad road, or they have been running three or four hours late. The bus operator himself, the man whose buses are providing this new service, was stranded for a whole night in the snow and ice of Dava Moor, and it was reported in one of the local newspapers that he and his companions sat freezing in the vehicle, a four-wheel drive vehicle which he had been using to guide and help one of his own buses. They sat there
burning empty cigarette packets in an attempt to thaw the windscreen and give even just a little warmth
and then, at about 9 a.m., they set out to walk to Grantown-on-Spey. He said:
We were soaking and frozen stiff. I was never so cold in all my life, and I have been really cold at times.
This was the bus operator himself, who, I say at once, is doing his best in the circumstances. But he cannot, on these roads and in such conditions, provide with his own resources a service which is good enough.
The provost of Grantown-on-Spey sent a telegram to the Minister on 3rd December about conditions and the fact that the alternative services were not functioning. In reply, the Ministry stated:
On the question of the adequacy of the alternative service stipulated as a condition of the Minister's consent to the closure, you will understand that these were designed to meet the needs of former rail travellers in normal conditions and that it would be impossible for

the Minister to make special provision for exceptional circumstances.
What are exceptional circumstances? These conditions started in mid-November, and in this area they can be expected to continue until mid-March. For about four months of the year, this kind of thing is to be expected.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: Every year.

Mr. Campbell: This is what I have been trying to bring home to the Minister. He was warned about it earlier. The position about which we are talking occurs rarely anywhere else in Britain, and what the Minister may think exceptional is, in fact, normal.
The Minister is still responsible for the conditions which he stipulated, as the Parliamentary Secretary made clear in the debate on 13th May. He ought to satisfy himself in the first months that his conditions are being properly fulfilled. This is not a secluded part of the country. More and more people frequent it for winter sports. I repeat the words I used on 13th May:
The snow, which has been an asset, and has brought so much in the way of employment and prosperity through the development of winter sports, can also, in such a high area, be a hazard to winter travel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1965; Vol. 712, c. 868.]
With this welcome development of winter sports, my plea to the Minister is that he should not make transport more difficult and, at times, impossible. I do not mind whether the transport arrangements are by road or by rail, but they must operate as adequately as before. If they are to be by road, which seems more difficult than by rail, a great deal must be done.
The Minister has been told about this before. It is not new. For example, road improvements and major snow ploughing operations are necessary. I have just received a letter from the Grantown-on-Spey Improvement and Tourist Association, whose view is expressed in this way:
They feel that it is futile to spend money towards Highland Development Boards and a Scottish Tourist Board when such an action is being taken by the Ministry of Transport.
Finally, there has been an ugly rumour that the Aviemore-Inverness section of line is to be closed in the next three or four years for extensive repairs to one


of the viaducts. This is part of the vital link between Perth and Inverness, and I know that it will affect the constituencies of hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). Last Friday, there was a letter in the Glasgow Herald, which, no doubt, the Minister has seen, saying that it was understood that the whole line was to be closed. I am glad that the letter from British Railways which appeared last Monday was reassuring on that and said that the line would not be closed—and it certainly was not on Dr. Beeching's list—but it said nothing about the possibility of repairs to the viaduct. I hope that that is not a significant omission and that the Minister will reassure us about it now, or, if it is too short notice—I shall quite understand—he will tell us that, if it is true that such extensive repairs are necessary, he will look into the matter immediately after the debate. If it were true it would mean that, following the closure. I have already mentioned, the only route north to Inverness and points north and west of Inverness would be round by the east coast via Aberdeen. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will soon be able to announce that nothing so ridiculous as that will come about.

2.40 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) upon raising this subject, which is extremely important to all of us in the North of Scotland. I wish to ask one or two questions about the railways.
First, I support everything said by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn with reference to the Aviemore-Forres line and the difficulties which have been experienced, particularly recently when the weather has been so bad. This is a very real factor which one just cannot get round. I do not want to repeat what the hon. Member said, but communications have been almost completely disrupted during the recent bad weather. As the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said in an interjection, this is not something which happens rarely; it happens over three or four months of the year. So some consideration should be given to it.
To take up the last point made by the hon. Member, if we had repairs to the viaduct at Carrbridge and there is no alternative way of getting to Inverness other than by going to Aberdeen, we shall have a completely ridiculous situation. Since Beeching, people in the north of Scotland have been worried that what they succeeded in preventing by making a tremendous fuss might in the end go through by a stealthy process. For instance, people in the west of my constituency are worried by the fact that it appears that all the traffic to the Western Isles, which formerly split as between Mallaig and Kyle, is all being directed to Kyle.
I will not argue the pros and cons of this now, but I would point out that at the S.T.U.C.C. hearing these lines to the Isles were examined in isolation. I suppose that it is rational to look at them in some ways as part of a service to the West. But we ought to know more about it. The decision has been taken, but perhaps the Minister will feel in some way able to make a comment on whether British Railways is building up to a point at which it will say "You cannot have both. You can have one or the other, and, in our opinion the Kyle line is the only one which you can have."
I remember the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn and myself pressing the Minister of State on the question of the relationship between the Highlands and Islands Development Board and transport. The hon. Member raised the subject of his line more than once in Committee. We were assured that if any decisions of that kind were taken the Highlands and Islands Development Board would be consulted and brought into the negotiations and, therefore, regional considerations would hold weight. It does not seem to me that this has happened in this case, and I should like the Minister's comment about it.

2.43 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I want to widen the subject slightly from the problem of a particular locality to the problem of specific industries in the north of Scotland. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will know of these points because I have raised them before.
I wish to raise the problems of industries such as the shell fish industry and the salmon industry. Since last summer they have found great difficulty in getting their produce to markets in England where the great proportion of what they produce has to go. It is not just a question of rail services being withdrawn, although this does affect certain areas. It is much more a question of the kind of service provided and whether the goods will be accepted by the railways, and if they are, whether the timing of the trains is suitable or the trains are fast enough to get the highly perishable produce to the London market in the right condition at the right time. In relation to the whole economy of Scotland, these industries may be small in their economic importance. Yet they may represent everything in the life of a certain community or area. I urge the Minister of Transport not to lose sight of the importance of this in local terms in relation to the whole.
I turn now to air services in the Highlands. I welcome the introduction of the Viscount aircraft, but I would ask most sincerely that it should be backed up by good service schedules. What is needed is not just the provision of better aircraft but the provision of improved schedules giving more opportunity.
Finally, I emphasise what the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) said about what is needed more than anything else—co-ordination of transport facilities. It is not a matter just of rail, just of air or just of roads. These services must be viewed together and geared in together. Only by that means will the needs of the North of Scotland be properly met.

2.46 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): I am very well aware of the pressure of time. The more time we take on this subject, the less there will be for others. So I shall try to be brief. I realise that other hon. Members from Scotland on both sides of the House would have liked to participate in the debate, and I am sorry that they have not had the opportunity.
Some of the points which have been raised are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is here and has, no doubt, taken note of

them. There is close consultation between the Ministry of Transport and the Scottish Office on the general question, although our responsibility at the Ministry of Transport is merely for the railway aspect.
I do not want anyone to think that I am unacquainted with the hazards of the geography of the district under discussion. I spent an important part of the summer, such as it was, travelling through the district by car and on foot. Therefore, I am acquainted with the general problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell).
I do not wish to repeat the Adjournment debate that we had on 13th May, although the hon. Member was tempting me to go through the whole of the story, a tangled one, of the treatment of the Aviemore-Forres line. I then dealt with this subject and set out the financial and other reasons why my right hon. Friend came to his decision on closure and the conditions that he laid down under which the Railways Board would be permitted to close the line. I would remind the House, however, of the principal point—it has been very much in the news recently—which is the railway deficit. The line has been losing £114,000 a year owing to the comparatively small usage. The pressure of financial circumstances—let us be frank—forced us to make a decision which our predecessors had not made.
I do not want to split hairs with the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn about the definition of the Highlands. He has had his exchanges with my right hon. Friend about the remarks that he made in the debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech. However, for the record let me remind the hon. Gentleman of these facts about railway passenger closures. Taking the north of Scotland as a whole, the former Conservative Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, consented to the closure of nine services and refused consent in two cases. My right hon. Friend has consented to closure in three cases and has refused one. The inference of the hon. Gentleman's remarks during the debate on the Address was that somehow my right hon. Friend had initiated the process of rail closures in the north of Scotland. Let us note that the Tory Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, consented to nine


cases of closure in the North of Scotland, nine railway passenger services.
We appreciate the serious and difficult position that exists in the north of Scotland. That is why the Government have established for the first time special machinery in order to go into the question of the future pattern of transport services in Scotland as a whole and in the Highlands in particular. In the case of the Aviemore-Forres line, or any other line, it is my right hon. Friend's responsibility to see that the conditions he attaches to a consent to close a railway service are fulfilled and to direct the Railways Board not to close a service until those conditions have been fulfilled.
I repeat that we regard very seriously any complaints made by the local authorities, by individual citizens or by hon. Members about the inadequacy of services that have been laid down by my right hon. Friend as a replacement for railway services and that we will investigate—as we are investigating all the time—any such complaints. But, of course, it is true that transport both by road and by rail is sometimes seriously affected by weather conditions which are beyond our control. We recognise that there have been blockages this year.
I have been advised that the road over Dava Moor to Forres was blocked on two mornings, with only single lane operations on 29th November to 1st December, but that the road has been clear since 10th December. The A.9 was blocked for a period of one day in November, together with some other roads.
But this very serious problem is faced not only on the roads but on the railways, where services also are sometimes blocked. It is not to be thought that it is just because there is not a railway service operating that transport comes to a standstill. But very urgent measures are being taken to step up the supply of equipment available for keeping the roads open and for coping with this general difficulty. As I have said, we will investigate any complaints that are brought to our attention about alternative services which replace railway services.

Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that roads technically open

on the high ground in Scotland are not necessarily roads which can be used in safety? Railway lines in high districts are able to get through conditions which a car simply cannot. This has been proved year after year.

Mr. Swingler: This matter is gone into carefully whenever proposals to close railway services are made. Such an investigation was made and the Highland Transport Board was consulted on the proposed closure of the Aviemore-Forres line. That would be true of any other proposals. Hon. Members will recognise that the development of roads in Scotland is not a matter for my Department but for the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has informed me that a very substantial programme of road development is being organised—and indeed has been organised—for the five north-eastern counties.
In the autumn, some 20 schemes on trunk roads in these counties were going ahead at a cost of about £600,000. Under the general programme for classified roads in the five year period we are now in grants amounting to over £1 million have been authorised or allocated for improvements while, in the four-year period for which grants are allocated for maintenance and improvement of classified roads, £3,626,000 has been allocated.

Mr. G. Campbell: As the Dava Moor area is not a development district, I understand that this work will be held up as a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's measures.

Mr. Swingler: The amount held up by the Chancellor's measures has been very small indeed. One trunk road and 14 classified schemes at a cost of £244,000 have been deferred and work on these will now start during the six month period from February to July, 1966. As I have said, 20 schemes at a cost of over £600,000 were being developed in the autumn, and in addition there is the maintenance and improvement of classified roads. This is a considerable investment in road development and we are also making considerable investment in additional and modern equipment for keeping roads open—for instance, snow ploughs—by dealing with blockages and other problems.
The Government have established not only an Economic Planning Council and


a Planning Board for Scotland but also the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which will take over from the Highlands Transport Board, whose final report is expected towards the end of next year. This establishes new machinery for looking at all forms of transport in Scotland in a co-ordinated and comprehensive way and seeing what will be required for the Highlands in future. The Report which the Highland Transport Board makes will be considered by the Government against the background of the White Paper on Scottish economy which will be published early next year.
This will enable us to come to some conclusions on the future relationship of railway services and the development of road transport in Scotland in a coordinated fashion. But there is no question of organising and operating railway services in Scotland in order to justify cases for closure.
My right hon. Friend is not responsible for the management of railway services, but in Scotland there is a special position under the Railways Board whereby the manager of the Highlands Division has a fully integrated responsibility in the Scottish region for the conduct of all railway working. Last month, my right hon. Friend approved an investment of more than £400,000 in the development of railway services in the north of Scotland. This is indicative of the fact that, far from considering more and more cases for closure we want to get on with modernisation of the railway services in Scotland, to make them more financially viable and to have them co-ordinated in the best possible way with the road transport which is available.

GATWICK AIRPORT (NOISE)

2.59 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: There is strong and growing local resentment against the increasing noise from jet aircraft, especially those at night, operating from Gatwick Airport. I have received a steady stream of letters from tired, worried people complaining of nights broken by this shattering noise. My sympathies are with them. Every council, from the parish to the county, has protested.
We all realise that we must accept that jet air travel and night flights will increase greatly over the next few years. It has been said that most people are against night jet flights until they themselves want to get cheap fares to have their holidays abroad. What we must do is to learn to control the unacceptable side effects of this new and popular mobility. This will involve action at three levels, international, national and local.
Last summer, because of protests in that region, there was a major switch of night flights from Heathrow to Gatwick. These were included in this year's total of 900 night movements at Gatwick between 11.30 in the evening and six the next morning. Next spring, more night flights are to be switched to Gatwick and the total may well approach half the Heathrow limit which the Minister of Aviation has now fixed at 3,500 night flights for the year.
No long-term solution to control noise at its source—that is, in the jet engines—is yet in prospect. I should like the Minister to consider whether the total annual effort in research into the reduction of jet engine noise, estimated at about £500,000, is enough.
We welcome the initiative taken by Sir Anthony Millward, head of B.E.A., in requiring that any future planes supplied to B.E.A. shall be quieter. Let B.U.A. and other lines please follow suit.
Another long-term solution, of course, would be to establish for London a new international airport which would allow the approach and take-off routes to be over the sea, and to concentrate night jet flights at such an airport. This is the long-term solution which petitioners


from the area of Gatwick will be seeking. Perhaps the Minister will say how far this possibility has been examined.
However, apart from such radical solutions, there are important paliative measures which can be taken. At Heathrow B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have achieved good results in control of the noise of jet aircraft on the ground by the use of "Cullum" mufflers which diffuse the noise and project it upwards. I know that such apparatus is expensive. However, under Section 41 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, the Minister is our protector from aircraft noise, and I ask him to ensure that the most modern and effective mufflers are used by the airlines operating at Gatwick.
The Minister has, as I have said, a special responsibility for controlling noise at the airports to an acceptable level. For the public is debarred by law from suing airlines and airport authorities in connection with noise from aircraft.
I know that the Minister is trying to secure international agreement for acceptable noise levels at London's airports. On 17th May, in answer to my Question, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
Night jet movements at Gatwick will, in due course, have to be controlled, as they are at Heathrow, but I do not think any such action is called for at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1965; Vol. 712, c. 173.]
The situation, as I hope the Minister will recognise, has somewhat changed. In view of the increase of night jet flights last summer and the prospect of greatly increased numbers next summer and after, I ask the Minister for an undertaking that he will now set in train the work required for imposing controls at Gatwick next summer; for arranging for silent periods during the night, if that is practicable; and for reviewing air traffic control arrangements to ensure that permitted routes and rates of climb and the location of stacking areas are designed to cause the least possible disturbance to the people living in the region affected.
We have every confidence in the determination of the management and staff at Gatwick Airport to do all in their power to protect residents of the region from avoidable noise. They have been most helpful in the discussions which we have had with them. We know also that the

pilots have a good record for compliance with the conditions laid down in the interests of noise abatement in the area. We ask them, within their overriding responsibility for the safety of their aircraft, to do all in their power to help the community with this problem.
There are two other measures which I would like the Minister to take to help those seriously affected by noise from Gatwick. The first is to make grants for protecting houses—double windows and that sort of measure—just as he does for those who are badly affected by Heathrow. Secondly, I ask him to secure a reduction of rates in those areas where the peace of living has been grossly invaded by aircraft noise and a reimbursement of local authorities by the Exchequer.
There are many other matters which will be covered by hon. Members from neighbouring constituencies who wish to speak. I hope that the Minister will be able to outline some of the steps which he is taking to control this growing disturbance of the peace. In the Gatwick area public resentment is increasing. The Minister has a duty, as I know he recognises, to safeguard the public in this and other areas which are suffering from this peace-shattering din.

3.7 p.m.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: Although Gatwick lies in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary realises that other constituencies, including my own, are particularly affected. Both the way in and the way out lie over my constituency and privately I wager my hon. Friend that on the whole I have more constituents affected than he has. We have common ground in seeking to do everything which can be done to mitigate the noise from Gatwick. In addition, perhaps I can say that I live within four miles of Gatwick and I therefore have some knowledge of what is involved.
Of the four hon. Members on this side of the House whose constituencies are affected, I am the only one who remembers when the original project to enlarge Gatwick was made. The then Minister of Transport, now Lord Boyd of Merton, addressed a meeting of protesting and very angry residents. At that time the project


was that Gatwick should be developed as an alternative to Heathrow when fog prevailed and there was no question at that time of its becoming a great international airport, rivalling Heathrow in size, traffic and noise. We can all understand the grievance of the old residents who have seen their amenities destroyed and their way of life so drastically changed. I am sometimes astonished at the moderation of view expressed.
I had few complaints about Gatwick until the advent of the VC.10, but there is now a considerable variety of complaints from those who are directly affected. Everyone who is affected is particularly anxious that there should be a diminution of the number of night flights and we hope to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary what he can do in that direction. I very much welcome the cooperative attitude of the management of the airport. May I also thank the Parliamentary Secretary for dealing with some of the very angry letters which I have had to send on to him? I am also very proud of the fact that Mr. Peter Masefield is a constituent of mine, who lives very near to Gatwick and has, therefore, some idea of the problem.
The point I want to raise today is to do with the Gatwick Airport Consultative Committee. This Committee has done a very good job, and anything I have to say is in no way a reflection upon its members. I ought to point out that not all of them are directly affected by Gatwick and cannot speak with the same personal experience of those involved. One member lives at Brighton, another at Godalming and another at Egham. It is generally felt in the neighbourhood that the Committee should be more local and serve as a forum for the day-to-day complaints, grievances and opinions of the local inhabitants when there are transgressions of the normal traffic routes.
There is also some very uneven representation. For example, there are two representatives from Charlwood Parish Council, in which Gatwick lies, but there are none from the parish councils of Burstow, Horne, Felbridge and Lingfield, all directly in the flight path. I would like to suggest that the terms of reference of the Committee need revising. The fourth term of reference reads:

To stimulate the interests of the local population in the achievements of the airport".
I can assure the Parliamentary Secretary that my constituents need no stimulants. What they need are sedatives, because of the troubles caused by the aircraft. I suggest that this term of reference should be amended as follows:
To consider the effects on the amenities of the local population.
Finally, I would like to echo the pleas and the arguments of my hon. Friend in support of a silent period during the summer nights and for an extension of facilities for the protection against noise which has been given to residents in the area near to London Airport. I have put in double windows in the direction most affected and there has been an immense relief from the noise. Not everyone can afford to do this, and I hope that we shall have some help in that direction. We all realise that this is an appalling problem, and some suffering has unfortunately to be exacted for the common good. We look, and I know that we do not look in vain, to the Parliamentary Secretary for some thoughts and indications of the way in which his Department seek to mitigate this nuisance.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I would not like this opportunity to pass without congratulating the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) for raising this subject and upon the manner in which he has approached it. During the last year I have been conducting a long-term correspondence with the Minister and his right hon. Friends on the subject of aircraft noise connected with Heathrow Airport. It may conceivably be that our efforts in that direction have contributed, in some degree, to the dispersal which has taken place. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's approach because he has recognised that if all of us approach this problem from the point of view of trying to get rid of noise from our own airports and dispersing it to other places, we shall not get very far.
The problem at Heathrow is acute in the extreme. There are 7,500 movements a month, which is a frightful amount. In July and August the frequency is in the region of ten an hour, day and night, and it begins to affect the nerves; people reach screaming point. For this reason we cannot, in our area, in any way mitigate our demand to get rid of the noise.


Even though there has been some dispersal, it is still a fact that the frequency of aircraft travel is increasing so much that over Putney it is still going to rise by at least 10 per cent. per annum in spite of the dispersal which has taken place. This is something which we look at with very great disquiet. The only quarrel which I have with the hon. Gentleman is that he talked about the creation of an international airport on the coast as a long-term solution. I believe that it not to be looked at in that light. It is becoming a matter of such urgency we should look at this, not as a short-term solution, but as a mid-term solution.
We should not permit aircraft coming in from other countries, and continents, to cross over our country in order to dispose of their passengers. We shall have to recognise that there has to be some final means of transport provided from the airport. I believe that it is being suggested at the Stansted inquiry that Foulness might become a suitable airport on the coast. One thing which we must forbid is the use of jet aircraft on internal routes. I understand that British European Airways has set its face against the use of jet aircraft internally but I also understand that other operators are contemplating this. Once this happens life would be utterly impossible. Jet aircraft used internationally are bad enough, but if they were used internally the situation would be intolerable. The time saved by the use of jet aircraft on internal routes is so small as to be hardly worth while. If any of the airline operators was to decide to use such planes on internal routes, the consequence would be that other competitors would follow suit, purely for prestige reasons. The effect of this upon the citizens as a whole would be disastrous.
The project of an international airport on the coast is being considered, but it will take some considerable time before it could be put into effect. In the meanwhile one must say that in terms of the greatest nuisance to the greatest number, Heathrow scores over the others. The very large population living under the Heathrow glide path means that the number of people subjected to this nuisance is very much greater than the number of people subjected to it anywhere else. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not

mind my saying that I think the argument with which he began his speech, that the problem was international, national and local is right. It cannot be solved by dispersal of noise from one place to another.

3.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hordern: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) for raising this subject. The disturbance caused by aircraft noise in my constituency in Horsham, and in Crawley, is already intolerable and it appears likely to get much worse. I shall not burden the House with the number of complaints I have received. I need only say that my experience of living outside Horsham, and south of Crawley, in the Summer Recess was such that I can testify to the accuracy of even the most alarming accounts of the harm caused by this noise.
Crawley is on the borders of Gatwick and Horsham which is some miles from it, lies beneath one of the busiest trunk routes in the United Kingdom serving both Heathrow and Gatwick. I wrote to the Minister in October and received his reply dated 25th October, in which he said that he was carrying out an urgent examination of possible means of reducing aircraft noise. He added that it was not yet clear whether it was practicable to insist on reduced power settings over Horsham but that there were other possible steps which might be taken. That was two months ago. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say whether a decision has been reached on the possibility of the reduction of power settings and, if not, to tell me what are the practical problems involved.
At the moment, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, Horsham catches it both ways—from Heathrow and Gatwick—and the case for exceptional measures is very strong indeed. Unless something is done soon the lives of my constituents in Crawley and Horsham will become more and more intolerable. With all the extra diversions from Heathrow to Gatwick and the rapidly increasing level of traffic generally, it is incredible that nothing has been done to impose a limit of 102 perceived noise decibels, as is the case at Heathrow. The prospects are for further technical innovations. Short haul operators are already thinking in terms of a jet bus carrying 200 passengers, not


to mention the Super VC 10. To power these aircraft 28,000 pounds of thrust will be required, about 10,000 pounds more than for the present Boeing 707. The noise likely to be caused by these aircraft is past all contemplation.
Something must be done to stop this situation getting out of hand. I concede that there is much to be said for improving standards of speed and comfort for airline passengers, but not, as is the case now, at the expense of the suffering of millions of people on the ground.
I was glad to see the comments of Mr. Milward, Chairman of B.E.A., in The Times of 19th October. He said:
In their specifications for their new ultra short-haul jet aircraft, the air bus, they have stated that it must have a noise level of 90 p.n.d., about that of the Vanguard.
This would mean a 10 per cent. reduction. It would be of the greatest assistance if the Ministry would support this or a lower level for aircraft operators in London at the proposed international conference on aircraft noise planned, I understand, for early next year.
Meanwhile, the Minister should prescribe a silent period during the night at Gatwick during which both incoming and outgoing aircraft should be prohibited except for emergency landings. He should allow disturbance allowances to be paid to residents by the Exchequer. He should fine those airline companies which break the regulations concerning height. Above all, he must treat this whole matter as one of urgency which can no longer be left as it is in the face of a great and growing nuisance.

3.24 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) on raising this matter. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to understand very clearly that the people who write in and make complaints, as people in my constituency have done, are not cranks. Indeed, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) is a constituent of mine and he suffers visitations from these planes almost daily as he lives close to the Ashdown Forest. However, he, like many others, realises that aircraft noise is a growing burden and nuisance.
Recently, a deputation of councillors from East Grinstead went to Gatwick.

They were received very well and were most courteously treated, and they have had undertakings from the airport authorities that they will look into some of their complaints—for example, to try to prevent trainer aircraft from flying low over the town of East Grinstead; to institute radar checks on commercial flights coming into Gatwick; and to discover to what extent they are flying low, as some of them appear to be. They are supposed to come in at 2,000 ft. East Grinstead is 500 ft. above sea level. Therefore, aircraft fly over East Grinstead at about 1,500 ft. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will ensure that these checks are properly carried out.
I associate myself with the remarks which have been made about grants to help people to insulate houses and the possibility of having a silent period during the evening. There is one point which needs emphasising. Those of us who live in towns are accustomed to the background roar of traffic, and, although an aeroplane can be a confounded nuisance, it does not intrude itself on the aural senses as much as it does in rural areas. This is why there has been such a very strong reaction to the development about Gatwick. The aircraft using Gatwick fly over rural areas, and if we are to preserve that which is worth preserving in our countryside surely we should not, as we move close to the year 2,000, allow its serenity to be utterly destroyed.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) spoke about a mid-term solution and the possibility of having an airport near the coast. This is a matter which demands investigation now in the hope that in a few years it will be possible to choose a suitable site.
My constituents can be pardoned for their cynical reaction to a certain advertisement. I know that B.O.A.C. does not fly its aircraft in and out of Gatwick, but one of its advertisements is typical of those which are carried in the Press in this jet age. It states:
B.O.A.C. cares about going places quietly",
and there is a photograph of a V.C.10. We are told that
the B.O.A.C. VC.10 is triumphantly swift, silent and serene. Its powerful Rolls Royce engines are at the back so all the noise gets left behind you".


That produces a big horse laugh among my constituents when the jets take off from Gatwick. We are invited to
join the B.O.A.C. VC.10 quietly going places".
I am sure that many of my constituents would be very happy to join so that they were not left behind with the noise.

3.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. John Stone-house): The hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) has performed a valuable service in bringing this subject before the House for debate. I know that he and his hon. Friends are very concerned, on behalf of their constituents, about the amount of aircraft noise being produced at Gatwick. But, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, it is to be expected that the number of night jet flights will increase in years to come. It is only to be expected that as our airlines buy new aircraft they will want to put them to economic use, and that involves flying them at night as well as during the day. To relieve the congestion and the far more intensive noise problem at Heathrow we must expect that more of these flights will be transferred from Heathrow to Gatwick in the years to come. We hope to have the co-operation of the airlines in doing just that.
Therefore, I am afraid that I must acknowledge that the point which the hon. Member for Dorking made about the increase of night jet flights was absolutely correct and that in that respect I will not give him and his constituents very much comfort this afternoon. However, as he is aware, my right hon. Friend and my Department are very anxious indeed to minimise the disturbance caused by noise. It was for this reason that we took reserve powers in the Airports Authority Act to enable the Minister to control the noise. We have also enabled householders living around Heathrow to have soundproofing grants which will be paid by the British Airports Authority.
It is too early to suggest that these grants should be paid to householders round Gatwick, although I note the suggestion made in the debate. The noise problem at Gatwick is not nearly as serious as it is at Heathrow. If and when

it reaches those proportions we will consider allowing the householders' soundproofing grant system to apply there as well.
It is true that air travel at Gatwick has been increasing in the last few years. This is something which we want to encourage because Gatwick is a very important investment. About £10 million is invested in it, and it is only proper that we should expect as a community a return on this investment. Gatwick has been showing a loss of about £l million a year and we hope that the transfer of more lines to Gatwick will help to eliminate this loss in years to come. This increased traffic will, however, mean more noise and I am afraid that a large increase in jet movements will be effected during the next few years.
We do, of course, respect the views of the local population around Gatwick Airport and we value the work of the consultative committee to which the right hon. Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) referred. We will certainly consider the points made by the right hon. Gentleman about the terms of reference of the committee. My right hon. Friend is receiving a deputation from the committee next month and he will be considering several proposals which it is making, one of which is the suggestion, which has been raised in the debate today, that there should be a silent period during the night. I do not want to anticipate the points that might be raised by the deputation on that occasion and I hope that the House will understand if I do not give a decision on this question of a silent period during the night.
As to existing controls, all aircraft are required when both landing and taking off to follow routes which avoid as far as possible flying over the built-up parts of the country. We also persuade them to avoid flying unnecessarily low. In addition, jet aircraft taking off from Gatwick are required to use a climb-out procedure designed to keep disturbance to a minimum. We are now introducing noise monitoring arrangements at Gatwick. In themselves, these do not improve the position but they will enable us to have the facts on which to impose noise controls in the future. Although we cannot compare the situation at Gatwick to that at Heathrow, we are using the experience that we have already obtained at


Heathrow to improve the possibilities of control at Gatwick.
I should like to refer to the important question of controlling noise on the ground. We are anxious that the airlines, particularly British United Airways, which is using jets at Gatwick, should use the most efficient mufflers to avoid producing too much noise on the ground. I am glad to say that B.U.A. has generally complied with the requirements that we have set down, but some modifications have been required for the mufflers which the company has been using for the B.A.C.111. Unfortunately, although we expected an improvement in this equipment by the end of this year, we have been set back considerably by the recent rains and it may be that this improvement will be delayed by two or three weeks. We are, however, hoping that there will be a considerable increase in the efficiency of this equipment which is used by B.U.A. at Gatwick.

Sir G. Sinclair: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the most modern mufflers are installed at Gatwick? My information is that B.U.A. is not doing this.

Mr. Stonehouse: We are hoping that the modifications which are being used for the improvement of this equipment will be as efficient as anything else in use, particularly at Heathrow.
The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) raised the question of the serious noise problem around and about his constituency. We recognise his special problem and I am glad to be able to tell him that on 3rd January we are instituting a new experiment. The air traffic control procedures will be changed so that aircraft departing from Gatwick will now be directed to avoid Horsham. This also applies to aircraft coming over East Grinstead, where a similar control will be exercised. This is an experiment and no guarantees can be given that we can be in a position to adopt it over a long-term period. We will be calling for a report of these trials.

Mr. Hordern: Will that measure alone be taken, or can the hon. Gentleman say whether his other suggestion about

power ratios will also be taken into account?

Mr. Stonehouse: That is still being considered.
Gatwick is one of the important London airports and it would clearly be wrong if the night movements were confined to Heathrow. At Heathrow, a limit of 3,500 movements between April and October during the hours from 11.30 p.m. to 6 a.m. has been imposed. Night jet movement at Gatwick last summer numbered about 900. We expect this number to be considerably increased at Gatwick in the summer of 1966. As I have said earlier, I cannot anticipate the result of the deputation which wil be received by the Minister in regard to the suggestion about a silent period during the night.
I fully recognise the importance of this subject to the constituents of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who have contributed to this debate. As the hon. Member for Dorking said, this is an international problem. If we are to have a real solution to it, there must be action on an international scale. We must persuade the aircraft and aero-engine manufacturers to do their utmost to reduce noise at the source. My right hon. Friend and I are very hopeful that the international conference which is being called during the next few months will enable us to move some way in the direction of obtaining international co-operation to this end.
A few weeks ago, I was in the United States attending an airport convention and I was interested to realise that even in the United States, a country which has suffered from much more noise than most European States and where airline operation is in some ways more intensive than it is here, people are beginning to protest vigorously against aircraft noise and the airport authorities are beginning to do something about it. We were able on that occasion to exchange many useful ideas with them and we hope that the international conference to which I have referred will enable that co-operation to be continued still further.
I should like, in conclusion, to refer to a report which appears in the Evening Standard today concerning the activities of a member of the airport consultative committee at Gatwick which indicates


that certain illegal action is being considered to draw attention to the problem at Gatwick.
I very much deprecate—as I am sure the House deprecates—such proposed illegal steps. They will not make any real contribution to the solution of the problem, and we hope that anyone who may be considering such steps will have second thoughts about them.

TELEVISION PROGRAMMES (STANDARDS)

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Lady-wood): First, I want to say how grateful I am for the opportunity to raise this afternoon the subject of the standards of our television programmes. I also want to say how much I appreciate the presence of the Postmaster-General. It shows the interest and concern which he has for the feelings of many people. Many questions have been raised by hon. Members recently concerning programmes which have become offensive to public feeling—those which portray sex, violence, crime and vandalism to an unnecessary and sometimes alarming extent.
I recently raised with my right hon. Friend the question of how we could institute a wider inquiry into the impact of television upon all sections of society, especially youth. He replied that a committee had been appointed by the Home Secretary to inquire into this matter. My right hon. Friend will, no doubt, recollect that the announcement of this inquiry was in response to a Question I put to the Home Secretary on 3rd April, 1963. I had previously called the attention of the Postmaster-General's predecessor to the fact that I had found that no fewer than five children had been found dead from hanging after listening to television programmes. He replied to the effect that an inquiry would be made, and I was very grateful. I reminded him in a supplementary question that another young boy had been convicted of murdering his mother, and it was stated in court that he had been looking at television. I thought that this was a matter of urgency.
The committee is examining the problem and is carrying out research into the matter. I therefore naturally referred to the first paper that it published in March, 1964. In the foreword by a Mr. Noble, it said:
It will therefore be some years before results of new research projects begin to be published and in the meantime public discussion of the influence of television will go on.
In the meantime untold damage to character and more damage to the


spiritual welfare of our youth will continue to exist. I should like to see a much wider examination of this problem.
Since I raised the matter originally I have read the report of the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organisation's special research into the effects of television on children and adolescents, published in 964. We were told in this report that
These results are not entirely reassuring because they leave little doubt that violent programmes on television do not serve to reduce agression but, if anything, increase it and encourage its later expression … children with high levels of aggression are especially attracted to violent programmes on television. If television now feeds rather than reduces children's aggressive tendencies and if it gives them hints to take out agression with knives or guns then an opportunity may come to use those weapons at a moment when they are angry.
There is little to make us believe that violent programmes on television reduce the likelihood of violence in real life. On the whole, the weight of the evidence is behind the Berkowitz conclusion. He submitted a paper on this matter, in which he said that a heavy dosage of violence by way of a mass media, although not a major determinant of crime or delinquency,
heightens the probability that someone in the audience will behave agressively in a later situation.
This reminds me of the words of Shakespeare in "King John":
Sight of means to do ill deeds
Means ill deeds done.
I therefore felt it right to express my view of this matter in respect of the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. I am not concentrating especially on the B.B.C. The B.B.C. has been under a good deal of legitimate criticism, but both channels are putting on programmes which are not the most healthy for the youth of our country.
I then discovered that Lord Norman-brook, the Chairman of the Governors, had written a letter to my right hon. Friend's predecessor on 19th June, 1964, in which he said:
The Board accept that so far as possible the programmes for which they are responsible should not offend against good taste or decency, or be likely to encourage crime and disorder or be offensive to public feeling. In judging what is suitable for inclusion in programmes, they will pay special regard to the need to ensure that broadcasts designed to stimulate

thought do not so far depart from their intention as to give general offence.
We are bound to recognise that the B.B.C. has been obliged on about six occasions in the last seven weeks to apologise. This shows that there is something wrong.
I wrote to Lord Normanbrook and explained that, while I was in no way anti-B.B.C., I was concerned about the level of television programmes. I said that I, like many others, had become increasingly disturbed about the deterioration of programmes calculated to have a detrimental effect, especially on the young. I added that the problem of crime, violence, juvenile delinquency and vandalism was giving concern and the gravest anxiety and no programme likely to encourage crime and disorder should be permitted.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: When my hon. Friend wrote to Lord Normanbrook, did he explain, define or write down the word to which he objected?

Mr. Yates: I was writing not about a particular word but about programmes. Therefore, I thought that I should get an answer when I asked him if he and his fellow governors would take early action to ensure that this great medium would set higher standards and ideals in an endeavour to elevate the minds of the people.
I think that it was reasonable, but all I received in reply was a letter which said:
I have now seen the answer which the Postmaster General gave to your Question. I do not think that there is anything I can usefully add to this.
Yet when I looked to the Press on 16th December, six days after I sent my letter, I saw headlines like "Governors seek more say in B.B.C. TV shows" in the Daily Mail; "Governors of the B.B.C. take grip on TV shows" in the Daily Express; "B.B.C. chiefs to tighten grip on TV "in the Daily Sketch. If this was the case, the Chairman of the B.B.C. Governors might have told me what steps he was taking to tighten up.
I was pleased to read that such was the case, but I had to turn to The Guardian to find out exactly what was being said about tightening up. I found that the B.B.C. had sent out a letter—signed by Mr. Sidney Newman, the head


of the B.B.C.—giving advice. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would tell me if this is correct. I asked if I could have a copy of this letter and the Director-General decline. I accept that it was an internal communication, but it went out to the Press and I thought it reasonable that I, too, should have a copy.
Among these subjects to be watched carefully are needlessly lengthy violence, reference to sexual parts, underclothes, contraceptives, the showing of near nudity, too much emphasis on the physical side of sex, in particular the portrayal of couples in bed, and the use of offensive words. Our responsibility to the public equals our responsibility to television. I have read statements made by ministers of religion. One made a statement in his December bulletin calling attention to the I.T.A. He spoke of a scene in which a young girl was undressing in, so to speak, a couple of million front parlours, and inviting her young man to terminate her virginity because her parents thought that she had lost it anyway. This is not the worst that has appeared on Independent television, in spite of the efforts made to control it.
As my right hon. Friend knows, much discussion about the B.B.C. concerned the use of a word which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire has mentioned.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What was the word?

Mr. Yates: My hon. Friend is very anxious for me to tell him, but I will not satisfy him. In any event, it is not the word about which one is most concerned, but the setting in which the word was used. Mr. Kenneth Tynan was asked,
Does this mean that you would allow a play to be put on the National Theatre in which, for instance, sexual intercourse took place on the stage?
He replied,
Yes, I think so, certainly.
He then used the word, which I think is of secondary importance. What follows is much more important, for he said,
I think anything that can be printed or said can also be seen".

It seems to me that we must examine this. The best answer is in a brilliant article in the New Statesman by J. B. Priestley in which he referred to the people who wanted this complete freedom and who wanted to champion the intelligent and sensitive dramatist. He said,
But a dramatist who insisted upon showing sexual intercourse on the stage would be neither intelligent nor sensitive".
He went on to say that there seemed
to be no truth in their notions that we can be purged of our love for violence by having our noses rubbed in it at the playhouse".
I would say that that also applies to television. All the evidence proves this. The glaring face of violence may be seen everywhere now on stages, on screens, and in hundreds of millions of printed pages, but where is all the purging?
Who wants to go to the theatre,
he asked
to feel sick?
One thing about people who watch television is that they watch it in their own homes. Apparently they have to feel sick in their own homes.
I will restrict my remarks, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. But I was interested in a leading article in The Guardian this morning to which I draw the Minister's attention. It contains a reference to the Annual Report of the Independent Television Authority. I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to one paragraph from the Report:
It could well be that, in broadcasting, a separation of powers which leaves a final judgment in matters of standard to an authority which is detached—though not too far detached—from the problems and pressures of production is a valuable safeguard of the public interest.
We should consider that. I do not know whether this is true but, according to the leading article in The Guardian, the I.T.A. appear to be much more efficient in the control of their programmes than the B.B.C. If that is so, let us find out how they do it. In the article, we read,
… the I.T.A. Programmes Department, with a senior staff of nine, has found it possible to inspect no fewer than 7,500 advertising scripts in a year (and to reject one in five), and a great many other scripts as well. If the Governors really want to exercise editorial control this is the way to do it.
I am not calling for a restrictive censorship. I want something much more


intelligent. I want a proper understanding between all those responsible for this so that we may get a better control over what we believe to be damaging to the public interest. The Government more than exercise this censorship. Indeed, they have gone so far as to ban the advertising of cigarettes on television because they believe that smoking is injurious to one's physical well-being. That is complete censorship. Are the Government as concerned with the nation's spiritual and moral welfare as they are with its physical well-being? If so, they must find a way of having better supervision and control over this medium.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider the importance of having a conference at which will be represented both the broadcasting agencies, the Home Office and others so that there can be a complete examination of television programmes and the bearing they may have on juvenile delinquency and vandalism. Let us, in the new year, have a thorough examination of this problem with the object of being certain that both broadcasting agencies will set higher standards and ideals in an endeavour to elevate the mind of the nation.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. James Dance (Bromsgrove): I will not detain the House for long because I realise that other hon. Members wish to speak. I intervene to emphasise a point which was extremely well put by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates)—to whom we owe a deep debt of gratitude for raising this subject today—that this is a matter which is worrying millions of people throughout the country and that it is right that it should be aired.
I would also like to express my gratitude to the Postmaster-General for being here this afternoon. I appreciate that he takes this matter seriously. In an exchange in the House last Wednesday the Postmaster-General said, referring to programmes designed for juveniles:
I know that this arouses very strong feeling, and if the hon. Gentleman"—
that was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty)—
feels so strongly about it he should, as many hon. Members do, make representations to the B.B.C. and I.T.A. either directly or through me."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 1254.]

That is exactly what we have been trying to do, and I wish to underline what the hon. Member for Ladywood said about our not seeming to get that sort of co-operation. In the past there has, I am sorry to say, been a somewhat arrogant attitude on the part of the Governors of the B.B.C. in their complete and utter refusal to meet their critics. That also applies to their receiving praises because, after all, we are not confined solely to criticism. I believe that had the B.B.C. shown more willingness to cooperate the present sense of recrimination which exists would never have arisen.
An outside body of viewers and listeners was formed to look into this matter. It comprises chief constables of various parts of the countries, members of the churches, including a number of bishops, members of the B.M.A. and a vast cross-section of the community. It seems extraordinary that on the day that organisation was formed it was immediately called "this lunatic fringe". Such a body of people should not have been referred to in those terms, yet that was the attitude of the B.B.C.
We are not confined to examining only the B.B.C. The I.T.A. comes into this, too. Lord Hill and the I.T.A. were extremely co-operative when I raised a matter with them. Several of us were invited to lunch, at which we had a frank discussion of virtually everything. They also invited Mrs. Whitehouse, who has been fighting for a considerable time in this campaign. We wore shown great co-operation——

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Was it a good lunch?

Mr. Dance: The lunch had nothing to do with it. They were willing to hear our views, and I would have been perfectly happy to have had the discussion over a cup of tea.
The B.B.C. is, or should be, a public service. That being so, it has all the greater bounden duty to listen to outside criticism—possibly even more so than the commercials, which are under the guidance of the I.T.A. The B.B.C. should, therefore, either agree to free discussion with people outside or accept the fact that we shall fight it, as we shall have to if the B.B.C. will not meet us——

Mr. William Molloy: I have been listening to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), and I was absolutely shocked when he said that the B.B.C. should be more responsible than the I.T.A. We cannot differentiate between the two channels, when they probably go into the same number of homes. We cannot say that the B.B.C. must observe very high standards but that it does not matter so much with the I.T.A.

Mr. Dance: The hon. Member has got me entirely wrong, but perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. I meant that the public service should certainly be as responsible as the independent service. It is not, at the present moment—or so it would appear from all the criticism we have had. Either the B.B.C. must agree to free discussion and talk about our problems, or it must accept the fact that we will fight—because we have to—for the setting up of a viewers' council, perhaps, or, as I have suggested in the Order Paper—and I think that the hon. Member opposite would agree—a body for viewers, similar to the Independent Television Authority, to cover the whole of broadcasting in this country. It appears that the Governors of the B.B.C. are falling down on their job and that at present the other channels are doing a beter job, although I do not say that they are perfect—nothing is.
Some of the programmes we have seen may be suitable for viewing in theatre clubs, or even in small theatres, where one can read what the critics have said and knows the type of play it is, but I maintain that they are absolutely unsuitable to be put automatically into 13½ million homes. And I want to kill, once and for all, the silly idea of "You can always switch off." One does not switch off until one has been offended, and if one has children it may be embarrassing, because they ask, "Why are you switching off?" I hope that this aspect will be taken into consideration.
I believe that the campaign both inside this House and outside it is having an effect—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood has mentioned the directive recently sent out from Lord Norman-brook. Some time ago, I tried to set up an all-party committee on this subject. I hope that we will have such a committee. It should be quite outside party politics.

And I hope that the hon. Member opposite and I can get together after the Christmas Recess with a view to setting up a committee of that sort. I would only add that there is no connection between our views and those of M.R.A.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Wedgwood Benn.

4.3 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn) rose——

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right and proper that a debate should take place, that two speeches should be made in support of the Motion, and that no speaker should be called on to express any doubt at all about the Motion?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing in that point of order. I noticed, incidentally, that the hon. Member was trying to catch my eye. He was no longer entitled to catch my eye. We are on the Adjournment. The hon. Member has already spoken.

Mr. Benn: I would congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) on their speeches. I welcome the holding of this debate, which is, I think, a great deal better than the exchanges that have taken place at Question Time, when I have been subjected to some difficult Questions and have found it hard to explain at any very great length the reasons for the view I have taken on programmes and standards.
We can agree that radio and television exercise an enormous importance in the lives of the community. They enter into every home, and have a far greater impact—particularly television—than almost any other medium, and they are major forces in shaping the thinking of young people. I believe that television ranks at least equally with formal education in shaping the education of the new generation. We must also agree that if that is right, seriously-minded people of differing views are bound to band themselves together into pressure groups to see that this great responsibility is exercised, as they would see it, in the interests of the community as a whole.
It also follows that, because of the importance of this matter and because of the differences of opinion that will exist between sincere people on the exercise of that responsibility, there will be disagreements, and I would be very sorry if anyone were to knock the arguments about television or those who engage in them on the ground that sometimes they appear to contradict one another.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove referred to one of the difficulties. It is that, by definition, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are in the field of mass communication. Unlike publishers, painters, film makers and newspaper editors, everything that is done by those authorities is available without extra cost in every home in the land, and it is really that problem that makes television so specially difficult for us to discuss.
There is one school of thought—and I thought that the hon. Member for Brooms rove rather moved in the direction of it—that because programmes are available in every house—

ROYAL ASSENT

4.6 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Expiring Laws Continuance Act, 1965.
2. Pensions (Increase) Act, 1965.
3. Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Amendment) Act, 1965.
4. Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Act, 1965.
5. Housing (Slum Clearance Compensation) Act, 1965.
6. Coal Industry Act, 1965.
7. Teachers' Superannuation Act, 1965.
8. Corporation of the Trinity House of Leith Order Confirmation Act, 1965.
9. Clyde Navigation (Superannuation) Order Confirmation Act, 1965.

10. Clyde Port Authority Order Confirmation Act, 1965.
11. Glasgow Corporation (No. 2) Order Confirmation Act, 1965.
12. Heriot-Watt College Order Confirmation Act, 1965.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Prayer Book (Versions of the Bible) Measure, 1965.

TELEVISION PROGRAMMES (STANDARDS)

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Benn: In your absence, Mr. Speaker, there have been some further contributions to the debate, which will not be immortalised in HANSARD but which I shall try to answer, as far as I can, in winding up.
I was making the point that the basic problem of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. is that they reach every home, and one argument adduced as a result of this is that what is shown ought to be limited to what is suitable for all.
My view—I think this would be the view of the House—is that were such a policy or doctrine to be accepted, it would sterilise and neutralise broadcasting to such an extent that the good as well as the bad would be eliminated from it. But if that view is rejected—the idea of universal suitability—how is one to resolve the questions of judgment that arise over different areas of controversy? I should like briefly to go over some of the areas of controversy that exist in connection with programme standards.
First, there is the moral argument. There are some people who sincerely and honestly believe that it is wrong to depict in television programmes, or to describe or discuss, those practices or thoughts which are contrary to the accepted ethics of a Christian society. Those people are ranged against others, equally sincere I believe, who believe that if television is to do its duty to the community it must deal with real life and depict, dissect, describe and diagnose the situation and dilemma of our society. It is a genuine conflict between people with opposite


views who are equally sincere in presenting them.
The problem arises again in arguments about religious belief. Some devout people believe it wrong that a broadcasting authority should in any way question, or bring into question, the Christian faith. There are others—call them humanists or what one likes—who have felt in the past excluded from access to the microphone or camera because they were expressing a minority view. In matters of religious controversy—although, happily, the arguments between the denominations have diminished—there are people with strongly held personal convictions that lead them to be gravely affected by what may be said by a member of another denomination.
There are also the arguments to which my hon. Friends referred about the general influence of programmes, the influence of violence on children. Some people think that this is a problem connected with "fighting and shooting"—the cowboy and Indian type of programme. But many psychologists think it is something much more subtle and insidious, that it is the attitude to violence depicted on the screen which may damage the child's chances of development. Others say violence never did anyone any harm when shown in books and other places, and that it is the triviality of television and the acquisitiveness encouraged by advertisements which does harm. Finally, there are arguments about political impartiality, which go on all the time.
I hope I have done enough without identifying my own views—it would be wrong to do so—to show that the areas of controversy over which these arguments range are so wide and the difficulties are so great that whoever was responsible for programme standards would find the task very difficult indeed. We as a Parliament have consciously vested this task in the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. and the members of the I.T.A., who are distinguished men and women dedicated to the task, with a wide variety of experience, and advised by advisory councils. They are people who by general agreement are well fitted to discharge the task. If it is thought that these men and women are not doing their job properly, it is right to criticise

them. What I question is whether a view that they are not doing their job so as to satisfy the opinion of one or other person watching, justifies us in moving into the new area of the Postmaster-General exercising his reserve powers.

Mr. Dance: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to arrange for the Governors of the B.B.C. to meet one or two of us and discuss these problems? That is all.

Mr. Benn: Perhaps I may have an opportunity of discussing that point with the hon. Gentleman afterwards. It is not within my power to arrange interviews, but I will discuss this aspect with him.
I ask the House very seriously to consider whether it is right, because some people strongly feel that those who are responsible are not discharging their responsibility, to try to draw into the controversy a man who, clearly, is not suitable for the task which is required—namely, a political Minister, the Postmaster-General.
The B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are very sensitive to criticism and public feeling. Letters, exchanges in the House and debates of this kind are studied fully by them both, and provide a feed back to the authorities, in whom Parliament has invested this responsibility. Were I to be attracted or driven into an attempt to use my powers to redress an alleged unbalance in programme standards, the case against such an attempt would become immediately apparent for I should at once become responsible for censoring 500 hours of broadcasting on sound and television channels. I should have to control expenditure and justify every single word said.

Mr. Molloy: Mr. Molloy rose——

Mr. Benn: I am sorry. I cannot give way. The next debate concerns the hospital building programme. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, for we are already running late.
One of the difficulties is that even B.B.C. cannot control what is said in a live programme by someone it has engaged to speak and to express views. Anyone who thinks that a participant in a programme who expresses views is


expressing views of the B.B.C. misunderstands the B.B.C.'s rôle as a technical publisher in this respect.
It is for this reason that the Postmaster-General accepts the self-denying ordinance imposed upon him by his office. I may add that no one is more frustrated in this than I am. I have less right than any back bencher in this and it is a personal sacrifice for someone like me, who began working life as a B.B.C. producer and is intensely interested in the content of programmes——

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Mr. R. Gresham Cooke (Twickenham) rose——

Mr. Benn: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not give way. The hour is getting late and other hon. Members wish to speak.
If it is argued that the machinery is wrong, what do we put in its place? A viewers' and listeners' council has been proposed but if we had one it is likely that it would create more difficulties, even if one could find people to appoint to it who were even more worthy to exercise such responsibilities than the Governors of the B.B.C. and the members of the I.T.A. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said in the debate on 13th May that the Government would consider this matter in the context of the review of broadcasting but I do not myself believe that the appointment of a viewers' council would meet the problem.
However, I align myself with some hon. Members by asserting my view that this is a very real and continuing problem which will become more difficult in future, because, on 7th January, pay television begins. It is not governed by the B.B.C. or the I.T.A. It is a licensed experiment under my personal licence. I am respon-

sible to this House for everything that goes on on pay television and the House may well have within a short period an opportunity to judge whether such an arrangement is necessarily the best. I do not look forward with zest to my new-found responsibility.
When the new University of the Air comes along, there may well be controversy about some of its programmes. Education is not free from controversy. Who is to be responsible for that? When and if local stations come, who would be responsible? As the House knows, local disagreements are very often more intense than national.
This is a real problem, and I confess that I do not pretend to know the answer. I am grateful to those who have taken part for airing the problem but I do not believe my intervention as a Minister would resolve any current difficulties. The debate will be studied by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. and the control and supervision of programme standards of any future outlets in radio and television that may be coming are being considered by the Government in connection with the broadcasting review.
I finish by quoting Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, in the debate in the House in 1943 when the House was discussing what Chamber it would have to replace the one destroyed by Hitler. He said:
We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1943; Vol. 393, c. 403.]
That applies with equal force to broadcasting and television. It is our job as Parliament to shape broadcasting and television but in doing so we must recognise that, afterwards, broadcasting and television will surely shape us.

HOSPITALS (BUILDING PROGRAMME)

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Paul Dean: I am very grateful for this opportunity to raise the very important subject of hospital building. Time is very short and I shall be very brief. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for coming here to answer the debate personally at this late hour before we break up. I am sure that he will agree with me that there can be no subject more appropriate before we break up for this great Christian family festival of Christmas than that of the sick and of not only those who will be separated from their families at this festival, but the many staff and voluntary workers who will be giving up their Christmas to try to bring joy to those not so fortunately placed.
The hospital building programme, published in 1962, was a bold attempt to set us on the road to a hospital system worthy of the nation. It has gone some way, but, we would all agree, not yet very far along that road. There are many uncertainties about its future. The original intention was a ten-year look ahead, reviewed every year. There were reviews for the first two years, but the third review has been postponed from last year to next year. We understand the Minister's difficulties, but I ask whether he can now tell the House when he expects the third review of the programme to be published.
There are a number of indications from statements by the right hon. Gentleman in recent months that the hospital building programme is running into some trouble, that the original promise has been somewhat tarnished by time and buffeted by events. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect answers which he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) about the postponement of a number of major projects during the year. Those answers appeared to indicate a fairly substantial cut in the programme for this year. It appears that about £27 million worth of work has been postponed and only half that amount put in. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can expand a little on that.
Another issue I want to raise is that of the National Plan from which it

appears that health and welfare in general are to have a smaller increase in resources over the plan period than any other of the social services. It also appears that the amount of money going into health and welfare in general will be rather less than the estimated increase in the gross national product. As I understand the figures, the figure for health and welfare is now about 4 per cent, of the gross national product and in 1970 it will be about 3·9 per cent. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can say whether that is correct. That and other factors which I do not now have time to mention suggest that there are doubts about the programme, and the sooner they can be cleared up, the better it will be for the hospital service and those who work in it.
I want briefly to refer to the long-term prospects. It is clear that we cannot build as fast as we should like, that we cannot meet all the requirements which we should like tip meet as speedily as we would wish. It appears that we shall not be able to meet them as fast as the Plan suggests.
This situation seems to pose two fundamental questions. The first is, "Are we using scarce resources to the best possible effect?" and the second is, "Are there ways in which we can draw in additional resources, over and above those provided by taxes and rates?" We have to consider whether we have our priorities right. I know that the hospital building programme tries to concentrate on putting money where it will do the most good, in operating theatres, X-ray departments, accident deparaments, maintaining priority for maternity and so on. I wonder if we have sufficiently pinpointed the priorities in view of the scarcity of resources. I wonder too, whether we have tended to be a little ambitious, and neglected relatively modest improvements to existing facilities.
We all know hospitals which, for a comparatively modest sum of money, could improve their working very substantially. The establishment of the hospital could be so much easier than it is. The out-patients' department, for example, is very often scattered over a number of different buildings. A first-class out-patients' department, with good diagnostic facilities, could very often save


hospital beds. Are we tending to be a little too ambitious about entirely new projects and neglecting the urgent needs of the moment in the existing hospitals?
The second point I wish to make concerns value for money. Why is there such a big difference in the cost per bed in different schemes? It appears that the cost per bed varies from something like £7,000 to, in some cases, over £15,000. It is clear that the cost of the site and the facilities which are required, are bound to mean some variation in the cost of different hospitals, but these big disparities appear to call for some explanation. Have we yet reached the stage where we are getting maximum value for the money which is being spent?
Since the war building costs have risen something like fourfold, whereas the cost of hospital building has risen much more. Is it not the case that we think too much in terms of asking a hospital "What would you like?" rather than saying, "Here is the cloth, cut your coat according to it."? Is there too much control over independent individual plans and designs and not enough over overall costs? I feel that there is not enough emphasis on standard units and fittings. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have done a great deal in this connection in the Building Notes which they have produced and circulated, but I think he will be the first to agree that there is still a great deal more to be done if we are to get the cost of building down.
The example of schools is relevant here. Great progress has been made in holding down the cost per school building, and this is one of the great credit stories of the last decade or so. Might it not he that there are lessons here for the hospital service? I should like to put in a special plea for the small hospital. I appreciate that the district general hospital has a considerable part to play in the future and that it requires expensive equipment. There are however many occasions where expensive equipment is not required, and where a hospital nearby is not only valuable to the patient but to relatives and also from a staffing point of view, because many of the nurses who work part time in hospitals would find it impossible to do

that, were their nearest hospital some distance from them.
I turn briefly to my second main point, namely, how to get in additional resources. As long as the hospital building programme is largely dependent on an annual allocation of taxpayers' money, it is bound to be very largely at the mercy of the Treasury. Is there the possibility that some form of hospital building loan fund might be set up which would enable us to get away, to some extent, from the year-by-year allocation for what is, after all, a major programme looking far into the future? Secondly, can we tap to a greater extent the local funds on the basis of pride in the local hospital?
One of the encouraging things in the last few years has been the way in which leagues of hospital friends have sprung up. They are now attached to most hospitals. They are bringing in resources largely on the fringes—television sets and the rest—but increasingly they are embarking on fairly major schemes. I can think of a number of comparatively small hospitals in my constituency the friends of which have raised fairly substantial sums to provide day rooms in the hospitals. I wonder whether there is some way in which we can bring these extremely valuable organisations and this local effort, both financial and otherwise, into the main stream of our hospital building programme.
Private sources are making a very considerable contribution to the number of hospital beds available. The example about which I know most is the B.U.P.A. and its insurance scheme. In 1957 the Association set up the Nuffield Nursing Homes Trust. Since that time it has spent no less than £2¼ million on nursing homes. Nearly half of this money has been raised locally and the rest has come from B.U.P.A. resources. I hope that we shall see increasingly co-operation between both public and private sources to get the hospitals in a position which a country like ours deserves.

4.43 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): I must apologise to the right hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), who I know wanted to intervene in the debate, but


the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) has raised a number of important matters, and if I am to have the chance to answer even most of them, and in view of the fact that the debate is taking half the time which it was scheduled to take, I am forced to speak now.
I am glad to have this opportunity of discussing the Hospital Plan and to confirm that the Government accept the need for a large hospital building programme. This is precisely what we are now carrying out. I should like to associate myself with the hon. Member's opening thoughts for the sick in hospital at this time of Christmas.
Expenditure is increasing annually on the hospital building programme. In this current year we have £68 million, including a special allocation of £5 million, additional to what was planned by the previous Government. The hon. Member said that he thought that the hospital programme might be running into trouble. In a sense, it has run into trouble since the original Hospital Plan was published in 1962. I would only suggest that perhaps it is in slightly less trouble now than it has been in earlier years.
The hon. Member was under a misunderstanding in the conclusions which he drew from some replies which I gave to the right hon. Member for Bridlington a week or so ago. If I understood him aright, he said that he thought that what I said indicated that £27 million worth of work had been postponed and that a lesser sum had been brought into the programme in this current year. These figures bear no relationship whatever to expenditure in the current year because the value of the works which have not been able to be included in the current year were the total estimated cost of schemes most of which would have to be spread over two, three or even four years. I can assure the hon. Member that we are spending more on hospital building, and substantially more this year, than has ever been spent before. I wish that I could give more details about future plans, but, as the hon. Member knows, a fundamental review of the hospital building programme is now being undertaken.
The original Hospital Plan of 1962, which was the first occasion for a compre-

hensive statement of the capital requirements of the hospitals and the Health Service, was generally welcomed in all parts of the House. As I have had occasion to explain previously, however, it was presented as a list of schemes to be undertaken in a specified period. Unfortunately, such was the haste with which it was produced, coupled with a lack of experience of large-scale hospital building, which was understandable because so little had been done, the cost of many individual schemes has proved in the event to be far greater than was provided for in the original plan.
That was partly because the full implications of schemes were not always fully appreciated in the first instance and there was a marked tendency, once a scheme was accepted in the programme, for additional facilities continually to be requested, which was only natural when those immediately concerned were seeking to fulfil the requirements of their own particular service. This increase in scope, however, together with the inadequate costing, simply meant that individual schemes rose substantially in cost; and thus, despite the fact that increased sums of money were made available at the first and second review of the programme, this has meant that fewer schemes could be undertaken.
Consequential deferment, and sometimes abandonment of schemes, has caused disappointment and a good deal of frustration among both hospital authorities and the public at large. It was for that reason that when I became Minister of Health, I was determined that the next review should tackle this problem. Any proposed schemes must now be defined adequately and costed as well as possible. The programme will be presented in terms of money. In a sense, it always was a programme in terms of money, but the mode of presentation tended to obscure that fact.
In addition, hospital boards are taking the opportunity to look again at priorities and to strengthen their planning links with other Health Service authorities. At this stage, I cannot say more about the progress of the review except to confirm my intention to publish a report next year, I hope not later than June.
The hon. Member for Somerset, North talked about the third review. I assure him that it is really a far more radical


and more far-reaching review than the first and second reviews of the Hospital Plan. He talked about small hospitals. I should like also to give him an assurance that it is not my intention to eliminate small hospitals. Many of them, perhaps most of them, will be needed for many years to come. I repeat, as I have said before at this Box, that no small hospital will be closed or its use basically changed without the case coming to me for personal decision.
The hospital building programme represents quite simply the proportion of the national capital resources which can be devoted to hospitals. We talk of these things for convenience in money terms, but they represent the employment of physical resources. The amount of these available to the Government for public services as a whole is limited and the Government have to decide their broad distribution regardless of the source of the money to pay for them. It does not matter whether this money is raised by taxation or by lottery; indeed, it is a general Government conclusion that, on balance, the arguments, both financial and moral, are against Government sponsoring lotteries. We accept that there is an immense need for hospital building. We have to provide for increasing population and for new advances in medicine as well as for replacing many hospitals which are obsolete or are now in the wrong places.
Although there is almost no limit to the immediate needs, we have to be realistic in meeting them. In the early years of a building programme the capacity of the service to plan new hospitals was a limiting factor, and it would be again if the programme were to expand too rapidly. Furthermore, the national purse is not bottomless and there are many other claims on our resources. The hon. Member raised the question of the National Plan. That set out how the Government aim not only to balance the economy but also how it tackles the problem of resources allocation. The figures for hospital building in the Plan show a substantial rate of growth and they could be increased if future circumstances permit. The hon. Member referred to the rate of growth for health and welfare services as a whole. I think he has done his arithmetic incorrectly. I can assure him that the rate of growth

is the same as that planned for public expenditure as a whole—4¼ per cent.
Since in the immediate future we cannot carry out more than a part of the total programme it is important to make the best use of the resources available to us by concentrating on the most urgent needs and leaving for later those hospital buildings which can continue in operation, with only minor improvements, to provide a reasonable standard of service for some years. We certainly must ensure that we get the best value for money by good planning.
There are two ways in which I can contribute to efficient hospital planning. I can give guidance to boards on what sorts of accommodation and equipment are needed, how these can best be provided, and what they should cost; and I can ensure that the examination of schemes in the Ministry leads wherever possible to their improvement and is neither unnecessarily detailed nor unduly prolonged. We have made and are making considerable progress in that respect.
I give guidance to boards by means of Building Notes, of which 28 have now been published, and also through the related series of Equipment Notes, Design Notes and Technical Memoranda. The aims of these Notes are, first, to show what we believe to be an acceptable standard of provision for the treatment and care of patients; secondly, to show how that standard can be satisfactorily achieved, and thirdly, to set a limit to the cost. We have told the boards that they may adopt the recommendations on the first two to the extent that they think fit, and that a cost allowance is a maximum and not a minimum. I do not want them to provide more expensive accommodation than they think they need merely in order to conform with some recommendation. On the contrary, I hope that they will continually seek more economical means of providing and operating hospitals while upholding proper standards of treatment, care, safety and maintenance. The more they can do this the further the money will go.
The cost allowances apply throughout England and Wales, and are for hospital departments, but a large part of the cost of any hospital building scheme is made up of what are called "on costs", which


may be defined as the costs of putting the departments on the site. As the hon. Member indicated, these vary very much from one scheme to another, and largely account for the considerable differences in costs in building schemes of roughly the same size and scope. For example, it costs a good deal more to build a tall building on a restricted site than a low building on an open site. These differences in "on costs" will always exist but we are studying ways of reducing them and we are apt to be critical of schemes where they seem to be high. These differences, in their turn, are reflected in different costs per bed. But cost per bed is a very crude measure of hospital building costs and often, I think, highly misleading. For example, if a scheme consists of a ward block and nothing else, the cost per bed will probably seem to be very low. If, on the other hand, it consists of what are called supporting services, the cost per bed, if indeed there are any beds, may seem extremely high. Yet the second scheme may well fall more comfortably within the departmental cost allowance and have proportionately lower "on costs" than the first.
Already, a great deal has been achieved and more is being done. From the inception of the National Health Service to March of this year, work to the value of £310 million has been carried out, providing, among other things, 46,000 beds, 446 operating theatres and 337 X-ray departments—some additional and some in replacement. During the past three years, no fewer than 175 major schemes were completed, 68 substantially new hospitals and 193 other large schemes were started and no less than £147 million-worth of work is in hand at the moment. This represents nearly half of all that has been spent in capital costs on the Health Service since its inception.
It is sometimes said that only a few completely new hospitals have been built. This is a misunderstanding of the situation. It is comparatively rare for a new hospital to be constructed on a virgin site. The more usual project is the systematic reconstruction of an existing hospital which has to continue to function in the meantime. Moreover, the

existing hospitals very often have one or more buildings which are perfectly sound and up to date. For this reason, it is usual to phase development and many schemes, though not new hospitals in the literal sense, are virtually reconstructions of existing hospitals. Since July, 1948, 13 hospitals have been newly built or virtually reconstructed, 67 partly reconstructed and 36 such schemes—that is, new hospitals and major reconstructions—are currently in progress. The success of the programme should be judged not only by the number of brand new complete hospitals but also by the improvement and modernisation of existing buildings.
The hon. Member mentioned, among other things, the Leagues of Hospital Friends. In passing, I should like to pay my tribute to the Leagues for the excellent work which they are doing. They are continuing to proliferate, I am happy to say, and they contribute greatly to the amenities for patients in our hospitals.
To sum up, it is not in dispute that a large hospital building programme—as large as possible within our resources—is desirable. Such is the importance which the Government attach to hospital building that hospitals were exempted from the general deferment of public building brought about by the economic situation last July. It is my hope and my firm expectation that the programme will continue to increase.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill (Norfolk, South): Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he bear in mind in his review the vital necessity of matching the hospital building allocation to the movement inwards of population to areas with a low standard of facilities at the moment—such as East Anglia—as, otherwise, the provision of hospital services will not be kept in step with the certain growth of new towns and other Government-sponsored schemes?

Mr. Robinson: I have assured the hon. Member before and I repeat it now that population growth is a factor which is being taken into account in the current review of the hospital building programme, which will lead to the fixing of allocations for the different regions.

WEST MIDLANDS (NEW CITY)

4.59 p.m.

Mr. William Yates: I wish to draw the attention of the House to an Order and to a confirmation of a plan in the West Midlands to create a new city of 200,000——

Mr. Speaker: Has the hon. Gentleman given notice to the Minister concerned of his intention?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am so glad.

Mr. Yates: The Parliamentary Secretary is present.
It is possible normally for us to try to carry the Members of Parliament in new areas where these new towns are being developed and it is the normal custom for the Minister to write to the hon. Member concerned. On this occasion, for some unknown reason, the Minister has not written to me, or to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Jasper More), to enlighten us on his plan. This, I think——

It being Five o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, till Tuesday, 25th January, pursuant to the Resolutions of the House of 15th December.